|
CNN TALKBACK LIVE
U.N. Inspectors Discover Empty Chemical Warheads in Iraq
Aired January 16, 2003 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ARTHEL NEVILLE, HOST: Hello, everybody. Welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. I'm Arthel Neville.
A discovery in Iraq has the world's attention. U.N. arms inspectors have uncovered empty chemical warheads described as being in excellent condition.
Joining me now is CNN national security analyst Ken Robinson.
And, Ken, first of all, how significant is this discovery?
KEN ROBINSON, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Arthel, I don't believe it is significant, unless, when they forensically look at those rounds, they find an agent purity that indicates that these weapons were weaponized recently. There were weapons discovered at this site by the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq, which is the precursor to UNMOVIC, in 1997.
NEVILLE: So, Ken, what sort of -- what are these warheads used for?
ROBINSON: Well, these are -- I don't know specifically. I haven't heard what type of agent was filled in these rounds. And we'll have to wait until then. But, in 1997, the type of rounds that they found there were mustard-filled rounds, with a mustard agent in a chemical warfare agent.
NEVILLE: But the ones that they found today, those are empty.
ROBINSON: That's correct.
NEVILLE: Correct, OK.
Now, tell us -- and you mentioned -- what did you say could be used in those chemical warheads?
ROBINSON: Well, a chemical round is used to disperse a chemical warfare agent on the battlefield. And the Iraqis, prior to the Gulf War in 1991, had produced chemical warfare agents and had sarin-filled rockets and mustard-filled rockets. And the production of those, they were stored at facilities all around Iraq. And Ukhaider was one of the storage facilities.
NEVILLE: So, then, it depends on what sort of chemicals would be in those warheads that would determine the amount of damage and how dangerous they could be? ROBINSON: In my mind, the news on this will be the following. If they do forensically determine that recently there was a pure agent in these weapons, then that's a different line of evaluation than if these are simply junk the was left on the battlefield.
Now, remember, the Iraqis have created their own problem, because they submitted three separate full and final complete disclosures. And none of those disclosures were full, final or complete. So, this is kind of boomeranging back on them, because they were not forward with UNSCOM and they are not being forward, apparently, with UNMOVIC either.
NEVILLE: So, then if in fact these warheads are just junk, then that's OK. What if not? What could happen then?
ROBINSON: Well, I think what will happen is that the system that has been placed by the international inspectors will determine and evaluate these rounds forensically and then they will make a recommendation to the Security Council on their findings. And the five permanent members and all the members of the Security Council will then make a determination as to the next step and whether to find Iraq in material breach.
NEVILLE: Now, what if in fact those chemical warheads, they are empty and, as you said, they're just junk. Is that a violation?
ROBINSON: The Iraqis were producing chemical warfare agents to use as weapons of mass destruction prior to the 1991 Gulf War. The Iraqis should not have in possession now and they should not have had in their possession then these type of weapons. If they found that these weapons were being produced recently and were being hidden, that would be a material breach.
NEVILLE: Right. And then what happens, is the question that everybody wants to have answered.
ROBINSON: Then the international community has a decision to make. The coalition which is being built right now has a decision to make. And some diplomacy questions have to be asked.
NEVILLE: And then, again, Ken, you mentioned junk. But these chemical warheads were said to be in excellent condition. Does that mean anything?
ROBINSON: Well, it is going to be determined. What we have to do is, we have to let the UNMOVIC team do their job, let the international community properly evaluate each of these, because it was determined from the report that I saw that 11 empty of these were empty and one was to be determined as to what its status was. It wasn't clear.
So, we need to let the UNMOVIC team do its job and make its report to the United States Security Council and then let the governments in question decide how best to deal with Iraq and whether this is or is not a material breach. NEVILLE: And, Ken, before I let you go, I've been hearing the words proceed with caution used all morning long. How important are those words?
ROBINSON: Oh, they're very important, because words matter. And each of these types of sites which they're going to stumble across are -- the forensic evidence has to be properly evaluated, because we're on a road and the coalition that's been designed is on a road toward looking for evidence.
The Iraqis have been very uncooperative. And the evidence that they've stumbled across now may not be smoking-gun evidence. It may simply be junk which was left prior, because this site was bombed in January and February of 1991.
NEVILLE: But if they're in excellent condition, doesn't that mean something that's just not junk?
ROBINSON: Not necessarily. This is a dry desert. Forensically, I believe that the UNSCOM inspection team has got to be able to properly present its forensic evidence, because, right now, all we have is a press release and a news report.
NEVILLE: OK, Ken Robinson, thank you so much for joining us here on TALKBACK LIVE today.
And joining us now is Frank Gaffney, former assistant secretary of defense and president for the Center for Security Policy. Also with us is Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
I want to welcome both of you gentlemen.
And, Michael, I'll start with you today. Could these warheads be considered the smoking gun?
MICHAEL O'HANLON, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: I don't think that's the way to make the case.
I think the administration has a very strong case for going to war. But if they go to war over 11 artillery shells, the rest of the world is going to this is a trivial violation. I think the administration needs to go back to the December 7 declaration, where Iraq denied having thousands and thousands of shells and gallons of chemical agent or precursor chemical and spend more time explaining to the world why that omission is a grounds for war.
If we hinge too much on these 11 artillery shells, it is going to look like the administration wanted to go to war and was just waiting for an excuse, however tiny.
NEVILLE: Frank, do you agree with that or disagree?
FRANK GAFFNEY, CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY: Basically, I think in I'm in agreement, Arthel. The problem here is that these shells are not going to persuade anybody who wasn't already mindful of the danger that Saddam Hussein represents, who was not already conscious of the fact this fellow has lied repeatedly, under these full disclosure documents, has been beavering away at these weapons, has been concealing them.
It was instructive that one of his apologists said that they just forgot about these shells. You bet they forgot about these shells. If they had remembered them, they would have hidden them, as they have hidden other aspects of their program. But today, I hope, we start seeing the beginning of the unraveling of such a widespread, international misperception that Saddam is in fact basically innocent until proven guilty and is now seen for what he is, which is guilty as hell.
NEVILLE: OK, Frank, hang on for me for a second.
Right now, for an inside view on what the administration is saying about what's going on here, this latest discovery, let's go now to CNN national security expert David Ensor.
And, David, what's the word from the White House regarding those chemical warheads?
DAVID ENSOR, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, actually, the officials I've spoken to on this matter are not at the White House, but they are pretty knowledgeable.
They confirm that it is indeed their understanding that these are chemical weapons munitions, that they were found in good condition. And they say that these munitions raise a lot of questions that need to be asked of the Iraqis. First and foremost, why do you have these? Second, why have you not reported them? They say that Iraqi claims that they did report these shells are not accurate.
NEVILLE: Now, David, have your sources from the administration been in touch with U.N. Security Council members at all?
ENSOR: Well, they have.
And, as you may know, Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser, had a meeting with Hans Blix and some of the other senior U.N. people a couple of days ago in New York. I gather the administration said in that meeting and has been saying to the U.N. arms inspectors in recent days, it's time to get tough and it's time to tell Iraq that time is running out, that it's incumbent on them to report what they had in their old program of weapons of mass destruction, what they have in their current program, and, if the reporting doesn't come through pretty soon, that will mean war.
For example, on the question of Iraqi scientists, until now, the U.N. Security Council -- the U.N. arms inspectors have been asking Iraqi scientists, would you like to be interviewed outside the country? Would you be interested in doing that? And the answer has always been no. What U.S. officials are saying is that, instead, the U.N. should be saying to the Iraqi government, not to individual scientists: Look, here's a list of the people we want to talk to. Here's a list of their family members. All these people need to be delivered to us, so we can take them out of the country and interview them in a place where they would not have to fear repercussions if they told us the truth.
NEVILLE: All right, David, and, of course, we all that know U.S. officials have been in touch with Security Council members. But, more specifically, I was wanting to know if they have been in touch since this latest discovery, the chemical warheads.
ENSOR: Everybody's talking to everybody right now. The phone lines are burning up between the United Nations and the United States and a lot of other agencies within the U.S.
As I say, the view of U.S. intelligence officials that I have spoken to is that this is a very interesting development, may or may not be significant. It may or may not be a smoking gun as to a current weapons program. If it is not, however, it's evidence of a past weapons program that the Iraqis have not adequately reported on.
NEVILLE: So, then, David, do you get the sense that this is sort of an acceleration, if you will, of the timeline into an invasion into Iraq?
ENSOR: Well, I certainly get the sense that the Bush administration's patience is not endless. It is running out. And they want that message clear to Iraq. And they are saying to the U.N. arms inspectors: Look, you need to be clear with the Iraqis in the interests of averting war. This is their moment and it's not going to last much longer.
NEVILLE: OK, David Ensor, thank you very much.
So, what do the Iraqis have to say about all of this?
Joining me now is CNN correspondent Rym Brahimi in Baghdad -- Rym.
RYM BRAHIMI, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, hello, Arthel.
Well, first of all, we heard from the UNMOVIC team leader, Dimitri Perricos. He told us that this was no smoking gun. He again explained that they had gone to this ammunition depot that was something like 150 to 200 kilometers southwest of Baghdad. It's an ammunition depot that was bombed in 1991 during the Gulf War.
It was also checked by the previous team of U.N. weapons inspectors, who, at the time, had destroyed a lot of chemical shells there. Now, that ammunition depot also host a lot of military bunkers. The inspectors went there and found those 11 empty warheads, found also one warhead that they said needed further evaluation, the reason being, according to Dimitri Perricos, that that warhead seemed to have been subjected to some sort of modification. And they just wanted to clear up what it was.
They said that they took the samples they need to definitely investigate that further, and, actually, to investigate the entire issue, because he seemed to say -- or, rather, he said that there was no significance to this unless there was other issues or other findings attached to it, basically. And so far, they don't have that.
Now, General Hussam Amin, who is the main interlocutor, liaison person in Iraq that deals with the U.N. weapons inspectors, was just out here a few moments ago speaking to reporters. He said he was astonished that this was seen as a big finding. He said that this was -- these warheads were in fact artillery rockets. They had been found in an old box. He said that they were not anything new. They were empty.
He said that this type of rocket had been declared in 1996 by Iraq to the previous team of U.N. weapons inspectors known at UNSCOM and that it had been declared as well in Iraq's recent weapons declaration to the United Nations Security Council. He also seemed to lay a lot of the hype that's come up over that issue on U.S. pressure. Let's listen to what he had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEN. HUSSAM AMIN, CHIEF IRAQI NATIONAL MONITORING DIRECTORATE: You can't imagine how the American president and this commission and how they want to make the -- this finding a huge finding which is related to the mass destruction weapons, chemical or biological. It is neither chemical, neither biological. It is empty warheads. It is small artillery rockets. It is expired rockets. And they were forgotten, without any intention to use them, because they were expired 10 years ago.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BRAHIMI: Now, the UNMOVIC spokesman that I spoke to, again, very shortly, acknowledged that they were probably old, although he said they were in good condition. Apparently, they had never been used before -- General Hussam Amin, again, saying that he was very astonished at this and challenged the U.N. spokesman, or the UNMOVIC spokesman, rather, to actually say that this was not the case, the opposite of what he made as a statement -- Arthel.
NEVILLE: OK, Rym Brahimi, thank you so much for joining us.
And when we come back, I'll continue my conversation with Frank Gaffney and Michael O'Hanlon.
And I want to know if you think the U.S. should be patient and give the inspectors a little more time or whether the U.S. has the authority to go to war now. It's our "Question of the Day." So, go ahead and give me a call at 1-800-310-4CNN or e-mail me at TALKBACK@CNN.com.
And we're back after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Today on TALKBACK LIVE: Empty chemical warheads are found in Iraq. Is it just leftover garbage or something significant?
Join the talk right now on TALKBACK LIVE.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Welcome back, everybody, continuing our discussion with Frank Gaffney and Michael O'Hanlon.
We're talking about 11 chemical warheads discovered by U.N. weapons inspectors.
And, Frank Gaffney, before we went to break, Rym Brahimi had a report there. And the Iraqi official is saying, listen, these warheads were declared by Iraq in 1996 to UNSCOM, so this is no big deal. Is this a big deal?
GAFFNEY: Well, again, I don't think it's a big deal in and of itself.
I think what it is evidence of is a large program that Saddam Hussein was engaged in before Desert Storm. There's evidence to believe he has been involved in it ever since. And what I guess I think this amounts to is sort of an intelligence test for people, an I.Q. test. Do you think that a guy who beavered away at chemical weapons and biological weapons and nuclear weapons for many years gave it up, stopped, did what he now says he has done, which is to fully disclose everything?
This suggests, in a very small way, that there's probably a lot more in Saddam Hussein's Iraq that we haven't found and I don't think these inspectors are likely to find, because he's been squirrelling it away, that represents a much more serious danger than these empty shells do, in whatever condition they may be.
NEVILLE: So, then, Frank, in your mind, is now the time for military action?
GAFFNEY: Arthel, I believe that the time was 11 years ago, when we had 500,000 guys on the ground, including in Iraq. It certainly is in our interests, I believe in the interests of the people of Iraq, and, for that matter, the larger world, to end Saddam Hussein's tyranny and his continuing pursuit of weapons of mass destruction at the earliest possible moment.
Delay not only gives him more time to be building and hiding and otherwise working on these weapons. It also gives rise, I'm afraid, to the opportunity for him to use them. And I think, the more we talk about the inevitability of war coming -- and I think it is inevitable -- and yet leave him more time to deal with that contingency, the more likely it is he'll go first.
NEVILLE: Well, then, Frank, there's talk today out of Saudi Arabia about a coup, an Iraq coup. What do you think about that? GAFFNEY: Well, look, the Saudis hope against hope that there will be a coup, because, if we actually wind up having to go into Iraq, there will be a genuine liberation of the people there. There will be an opportunity for a democracy.
It's not a sure thing, but I think there's a chance of it. And the Saudis and a lot of other tyrants in the region are terrified at that prospect, for the same reason I think we ought to insist on nothing less. Simply changing out Saddam Hussein for one of his cousins or some other Tikriti thug or a general who happens to pull the trigger on him doesn't do the job. It won't free the people of Iraq and it probably won't end these weapons of mass destruction programs.
NEVILLE: And, Frank, after the break, I want to know from you what you do think would free the people of Iraq.
We have to take break right now.
Don't forget our "Question of the Day": Should the U.S. wait a little longer before going into Iraq or does it have the authority to go to war right now? Give us a call or e-mail us.
We're back after this break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Continuing our conversation now with Frank Gaffney and Michael O'Hanlon. We're talking about the U.N. weapons inspections and some empty chemical warheads discovered in Iraq today, about 93 miles southwest of Baghdad.
Frank, before the break, I asked you, what has to happen to free the people of Iraq?
GAFFNEY: Arthel, I think the most important thing is tangible evidence that the United States military is on the ground and there to help bring about their liberation. I think you'll find the Iraqi people rising up against this regime in such a way as to bring about its collapse in, really, quite short order. I don't want to say that it's foreordained and it's going to be a cakewalk.
But I think, to the extent the Iraqi people are actually convinced we're there to help bring about their freedom and not simply keep Saddam in place, as we did 11 years ago, or change him out for some other murderous thug, I think they will be with us and they will help ensure that the job is done and that we find these weapons of mass destruction and can liquidate them, rather than have them disappear into God knows whose hands.
NEVILLE: Michael I want to bring you in now. I want to hear your thoughts on the idea of a coup, an Iraq coup, by Saudi Arabia?
O'HANLON: Well, we'd have to be awfully lucky for that to happen. I guess the point I would want to emphasize is that Frank and I have come at this problem from different perspectives over the last few months. But I think we're converging now on what needs to be done. And it's not so much the 11 artillery shells. It's the fact that Saddam has not taken his final last chance to disarm himself. And unless he radically changes that approach, all the appearance of smooth inspections is not enough to forestall war.
We're going to have not much choice pretty soon. And with 150,000 American troops in the region, they can't stay there living in tents all summer. We're either going to have to get a radical change in Iraqi behavior, admitting to these weapons they have and destroying them, or I think war is going to have to happen within a couple months, at the most.
NEVILLE: Going to the phones now, Mike in Arizona.
Is it time for military action?
CALLER: Absolutely.
In my opinion, I agree with both your speakers today that -- but, in my opinion, this is absolutely a smoking gun. How can you call these weapons garbage if they're in excellent shape? They're stored in relatively new bunkers. And why would you store them if you had nothing to fill them with?
NEVILLE: Thank you very much for your call, sir.
I've got another call coming in now, Bob from Pennsylvania.
Is now the time for military action?
CALLER: I think we've made this commitment to let the inspectors do what they're supposed to do. And knowing that and knowing that there were the guidelines, I can't see why we have to sit here with our finger on the trigger, waiting for a different shade of blue in the sky to determine whether or not we should start suddenly to go to war.
Any of these people, like your guests, who want to go to war, let them go on the front lines instead of our young men and women that are out there.
NEVILLE: Thank you very much, Bob, for the call.
GAFFNEY: Arthel, could I...
NEVILLE: Sure.
GAFFNEY: Can I just say something quickly on that?
I don't think, certainly, either Michael or I, or, for that matter, anybody in the Bush administration, wants to go to war. The reason there is this last chance is because Saddam Hussein was supposed to take it and to disarm. And this idea that the inspectors have to have time to do their work, well, Saddam was supposed to keep that time to a very short period, because he was supposed to cooperate fully, disclose fully.
He hasn't done it. He won't do it. I think he's probably incapable of doing it, which really mean time's up. My only disagreement with Michael, I guess, today -- and this is an uneasy feeling for both of us, I'm sure, Michael -- is, I don't think that letting this play out for additional months, even a couple more, really is in our interests, let alone those of the Iraqi people.
NEVILLE: OK, Frank Gaffney, you say time's up.
Michael O'Hanlon, we want thank you as well for being here on TALKBACK LIVE.
If this standoff goes to war, will the U.S. have to go it alone? We're going to talk more about that after this break.
Don't go anywhere. TALKBACK LIVE continues in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(NEWS ALERT)
(APPLAUSE)
NEVILLE: We are talking about the discovery of empty chemical warheads in Iraq and whether they suggest Iraq has something to hide. With us now is Cheri Jacobus, a Republican consultant and former spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee. And Amy Goodman, a talk show host on the Pacifica Radio Network. I want to welcome both of you to TALKBACK LIVE.
AMY GOODMAN, PACIFICA "DEMOCRACY NOW": Hi Arthel.
CHERI JACOBUS, GOP POLITICAL CONSULTANT: Thank you.
NEVILLE: Cheri, I'll start with you today. Is this the body of evidence needed to push forward an invasion?
JACOBUS: Well I think this certainly helps the case. The president I think has been very good about speaking regularly to the American people. We'll hear more obviously at the State of the Union Address from him.
It's not a smoking gun. We don't need just one smoking gun. But this certainly helps alert the American people of what the dangers are out there and that perhaps Saddam Hussein is not someone we should be giving the benefit of the doubt to.
NEVILLE: So Amy, you talk to the American people all the time. Do you think this sort of evidence and discovery would persuade those in doubt that in fact military action is needed?
GOODMAN: No. In fact, there's a major protest planned for Washington on Saturday, and if it's anything like the one on October 26, between 150,000 and 200,000 people went to Washington. So those plans are certainly -- people are very geared up. But I think what's most interesting about these shells is hearing that they came to Iraq in the late 1980s.
If you look at the U.S. support for Saddam Hussein through the 1980s, the fact that Rumsfeld actually met with Saddam Hussein in 1983 and 1984 as an envoy for Reagan, and helped to normalize relations with Saddam Hussein when they knew he had used biological weapons. What Bush is looking for is a pretext. It's as simple as that.
NEVILLE: And you're saying this is not a pretext.
GOODMAN: I would say that he would seize on it. The U.N. inspectors are not. They are asking that they would be able to -- be able to continue to do their inspections in a reasonable way with a reasonable amount of time. Now Hans Blix, the chief weapons inspector, wants to give another report to the United Nations in March, at the end of March. And I think he should be allowed to do that.
NEVILLE: In March.
JACOBUS: I'd have to take issue with the term "reasonable." The fact that Hans Blix wants to keep pushing this back and pushing this back, he is overstepping his boundaries in terms of what his job description is, and I think he's compromising his own mission and his credibility by doing so.
NEVILLE: How so, though, Cheri? He was sent there to do a job. He's saying, look, I need more time.
JACOBUS: He was sent there to do a job and he is asking for more time to go with an old resolution. We have Saddam Hussein, who has been thumbing his nose at inspectors and resolutions for a decade now. I think that for Hans Blix to -- Hans Blix is getting too involved in worrying about what the ramifications will be of the results of his inspections.
It is not his job. He will not be the person to declare war. He does not decide what happens if he finds more material violations. And he is too concerned with the result. It is his job to go in there and conduct the inspections and really nothing more. And I think that's where we're getting into a situation where he's trying to be the detective, the judge, the jury, the sheriff, the whole nine yards.
GOODMAN: Hans Blix is carrying out the mission that he was told to follow through on by the United Nations. It's not only the November 8 resolution, but it's one in 1999 that explained exactly the approach that U.N. weapons inspectors are supposed to take. They are going to report to the United Nations on January 27. Then Bush will give his State of the Union Address. Then he has another 60 days where he has to file a report for a suggested plan that the U.N. should take.
NEVILLE: Right.
GOODMAN: He is simply following the mandate that he has been told to follow.
NEVILLE: Amy, hang on for me there.
JACOBUS: These are old resolutions.
NEVILLE: Cheri, hang on for me. I want to go now to California. I have a caller calling in. Your name is Martin (ph). Martin (ph), go ahead. Do you think that these shells, this is a pretext for war? It's time for military action?
MARTIN: Yes, I do think that we should go to war and quit playing around with this guy. Because if we found those empty shells, what makes you think he doesn't have anything else hidden away that he can use on our people if we do go to war? I think we should just go in there and take care of business and quit playing around.
NEVILLE: OK. Thank you very much, Martin (ph). Go ahead, Amy.
GOODMAN: You know I just have to say that we have to use what is happening in North Korea as an example of the -- really what Bush is looking for. In North Korea they have thrown the weapons inspectors out. In North Korea, the U.S. said that they are developing nuclear weapons. But Bush said that we have to deal with North Korea diplomatically. Yet he takes a very different approach when it comes to Iraq.
NEVILLE: So why is that?
GOODMAN: Well, I think it's a small word, a three-letter word.
NEVILLE: Spelled O-I-L?
GOODMAN: And it's called O-I-L. It is very straightforward. And I don't think that can be contested.
NEVILLE: Cheri, hang on. I have a question for you. I'm out of time here, but I do have a final question for you, Cheri. And that is, if in fact there is military action, do you think the U.S. would have to go it alone?
JACOBUS: I would hope not. And this president, this administration, has been very good at pulling together allies and coalitions at times when we think that it's really almost impossible. I think, ultimately, the world will be with us. But, you know, he's making his case, he's going to continue to make his case.
We're not at the end yet. And it's not supposed to be easy. So I think he'll do it. But if we have to go it alone, I think we can. I just hope we don't have to.
NEVILLE: Boy Cheri, your e-mail mailbox is going to be loaded with e-mails. All right. Cheri Jacobus and Amy Goodman, thank you both for joining us here today on TALKBACK LIVE. Do appreciate it.
JACOBUS: Thank you. NEVILLE: And coming up next, guys, we're going to switch gears. Doctors say malpractice insurance is forcing them out of business. Does the president have the right prescription? We're going to talk about that when we come back. So don't go anywhere.
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(APPLAUSE)
NEVILLE: Welcome back, everyone. I'm Arthel Neville.
I recently received a letter from a woman who was terrified she wouldn't be able to get medical care in her hometown. Well all the doctors were threatening to leave, she says. And similar threats have been made by doctors in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey over the past month or so to protest the high cost of medical malpractice insurance.
Now today, President Bush called for a nationwide limit on malpractice claims, capping awards for pain and suffering at $250,000, punitive damages at a $250,000, and limiting attorneys' fees.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Excessive jury awards will continue to drive up insurance costs, will put good doctors out of business or run them out of your community, and will hurt communities like Scranton, Pennsylvania. That's a fact.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NEVILLE: OK, everybody. Listen, there seems to be a lot of finger pointing as to the root of the problem. I want to bring in a doctor's perspective right now, starting today with Dr. Palmisano. He is the president-elect of the American Medical Association. And Dr. Palmisano, I want to ask you, what seems to be at the root of the problem?
DR. DONALD PALMISANO, AMA PRESIDENT-ELECT: Well, President Bush has it right. What we have are awards that do not measure negligence, and they continue to escalate. We have a broken liability system that gives us jackpot justice, and then we find the rest of the population cannot find a physician in their hour of need.
We see obstetricians retiring early, limiting their practice, no longer delivering babies. We see trauma centers closing down, we see doctors moving to states where there are reasonable reforms, such as California, Louisiana, Indiana, New Mexico, and Wisconsin. So we need to fix this. We need to look at all of the patients and make sure that the doctors can continue to serve them.
NEVILLE: So doctor, are you saying that, listen, these lawyers are just getting way too much money for their clients in these lawsuits, these malpractice lawsuits? PALMISANO: Well actually, it's like a lottery system. So many of the cases that are filed, we know that in some studies by the National Association of Insurance Commission, 62 percent are closed with no payment whatsoever. And now in some states, Illinois and Texas, 80 percent are closed with no payment whatsoever.
So there's not good screening. There are a lot of junk lawsuits, as President Bush called them today. And we agree with that.
And so when there is this big liability award to a patient, it's not correlated with negligence, it's correlated with disability. And the attorney, the plaintiff's attorney frequently gets anywhere from 33 and a third to sometimes more than half of the money. So we'd like a system where, if there is negligence, patients are quickly and efficiently compensated and more of the money goes to the patients.
We don't want to drop doctors out of the practice of medicine, because we are in medicine to give compassionate, ethical quality care. And right now, access, quality and costs are adversely affected.
NEVILLE: OK, doctor. Right now I want to bring in Lance Cooper. He is the president of the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association. And Lance, you heard Dr. Palmisano saying, listen, these attorneys are getting way too much money for their clients in these lawsuits. So I ask you, are lawyers just sitting by chomping at the bit, if you will, to sue doctors?
LANCE COOPER, PRESIDENT GEORGIA TRIAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION: Well, as Dr. Palmisano said, malpractice cases are very difficult to win. Doctors win the majority of those cases. So the cases that attorneys take are normally the most serious cases where people have been seriously injured as a result of medical malpractice.
The real question here, if you want to fix the problem, and that is increasing insurance premiums, the question is, will tort reform reduce insurance premiums? And we've asked the insurance companies time and time again, if we enact tort reforms, will you reduce premiums? And they say no.
NEVILLE: Well then hang on to that thought. Hang on. I want to go ahead now and bring in Gary Karr. He is with the American Insurance Association. And I ask you, sir -- Mr. Cooper, repeat your question and I'll let Gary answer it directly.
COOPER: If tort reform is enacted, if the problem with the system in increasing insurance premiums is tort reform, if you enact tort reform, will that reduce the premiums? And the question is, if we enact tort reform will it reduce premiums?
GARY KARR, AMERICAN INSURANCE ASSOCIATION: The problem we have in this country is a health care crisis brought on by what's now a litigation lottery. If we had a stable, predictable legal environment, you would have easier pressures on premium rates. It in effect would help. NEVILLE: But Gary, I want to bring in some statistics right now and talk to you about -- let's -- looking at the state of Florida and California, the year 2002 in Florida, liability insurance premiums were at $174,000, compared to California with $57,000 in California. There is a cap. There is tort reform.
So explain this. There seems to be -- the question remains, why are these premiums so high in certain states?
KARR: Well, they're high because of the litigation environment that's impossible to predict for insurance companies. Right now the situation for companies that write medical malpractice insurance is they pay out $1.50 and collect $1. Well, you can't stay in business very long with that kind of profit loss scenario.
NEVILLE: And Gary, I'm sure Dr. Palmisano wants to jump in here, but I have another point I want to make here with you as well, sir. I ask you -- this is according to the Department of Health and Human Services. 1.5 percent of those injured by medical negligence file a claim. It's a very small percent. And then also, 57 to 70 percent result in no payment to the patient. So again, you're talking about having to shell out hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments and rewards, but it seems that, relatively speaking, not many people are getting any money.
KARR: Well, actually, the average claim has gone up rather dramatically, and mega-awards (ph) have gone up about 600 percent in the last half of the 1990s. The mega-award (ph), the $1 million verdict. So what the president is calling for here, having a cap on non-economic damages. And keep in mind, that is not for wages lost and that sort of thing. That's for the non-economic pain and suffering. A reasonable cap...
NEVILLE: What does that mean?
KARR: A reasonable -- pain and suffering -- the non-economic damages means damages that aren't directly tied to specific like lost wages. For example, if you were injured or if you sued and you couldn't go to work, you could actually get compensation for your lost wages, what you would have earned. The pain and suffering goes on top of that. And that's the kind of litigation lottery that we have right now.
NEVILLE: OK. Listen, we have to take a break right now. But coming up next, a new study out today could show why malpractice is such a problem. Imagine having an operation and leaving with more than you bargained for. I'll explain that to you after we come back. OK?
(APPLAUSE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NEVILLE: Well, a new study shows operating room teams leave sponges, clamps and all sorts of other tools inside their patients. Now some 1,500 patients a year carry these reminders of their surgeries. But experts say that number is small when you realize doctors perform 28 million operations a year.
But Dr. Palmisano, I got to tell you, I wouldn't want to be among the small percentage of people who had something left inside of them. How does this stuff happen?
PALMISANO: Well, we encourage studies like that because we are in favor of enhancing safety. That's why the National Patient Safety Foundation was founded, NPSF.org, by the American Medical Association two years before the Institute of Medicine report. And we want to go to a no shame, no blame environment, where people can come forward with ideas. And if they almost make a mistake...
NEVILLE: Sure. But how does that happen, doctor?
PALMISANO: Well -- how does it happen? If you read that study that was just published, you'll note that there never was an occurrence again with the same doctor. They were able to isolate the situation...
NEVILLE: Because what happened to the doctor if something like that happened?
PALMISANO. No. No, what happens is over two-thirds of the time is when the sponge count and the instrument count was correct. So we need to find new ways to make sure. If we have a patient, they're usually done in emergency situations, as they point out. So if you have a patient in shock, everybody's trying to save the patient's life.
Blood is all over the abdomen. The sponges become bloodstained. And if you start to look around even more, you try, you search for everything, you ask for the count, the count is correct, and then the sponge is left in, well, we could prevent that by taking a picture of everybody's abdomen at the end of the operation. One doctor did that for 30 years. Never found a sponge until the last day of his surgical career. He found a sponge and he said, was it worth it?
Well, what we need to do is think of something new. Maybe one of these scanners we use at the airport now for security, where we can just scan the patient's abdomen before we leave the operating room and pick up a metallic clip that's in the sponge. We need to innovate, not shame and blame. But this is the best medical care the world has ever seen. It's complex.
NEVILLE: So is the medical profession moving in that direction?
PALMISANO: Oh, absolutely. And that's why we founded the National Patient Safety Foundation and all the experts say that the system we need is a system like the aviation safety reporting system that has made aviation so safe. It does a great job and we get experts to look at what happened, we get feedback to the people involved, disseminate that to everyone in (UNINTELLIGIBLE) fashion, and that's what we're trying to do in medicine.
NEVILLE: All right, doctor. We're running out of time here. I don't mean to cut you short there. But I want to go ahead and get back to the malpractice insurance.
Listen, at the end of the day, the patients lose. How do we rectify this problem? I'll give you 20 seconds.
PALMISANO: Well, what we need to do is have a system that works. A system that enhances safety, a system that identifies true negligence, a system that takes care of the patient promptly and efficiently. This system doesn't work. President Bush has said it, Secretary Thompson, Dr. Frist, the Senate majority leader now in the Senate.
NEVILLE: OK.
PALMISANO: What we need to do is have a system that allows patients to be compensated. We have 70 percent of the...
NEVILLE: OK. Doctor, I'm sorry, your 20 seconds are up. Lance Cooper, your 20 seconds.
COOPER: We need to have a system that provides balance for the physicians and the patients. And when malpractice is committed, we need to have a system where the civil justice system allows those patients or patients' families to seek justice and redress from the courts so that they are fully compensated for their injuries. And that's what Dr. Palmisano is advocating as a federal mandate which tells juries, you're not smart enough to make those decisions in those individual cases. So we, the federal government, are going to make that decision for you. And that's wrong.
NEVILLE: And Gary Karr, your solution?
KARR: We need to have a safe, predictable legal environment so good doctors can go do what they do best, which is help take care of patients.
NEVILLE: OK. Thank you being succinct. Listen, Dr. Palmisano, I'm so sorry to cut you off.
PALMISANO: That's all right. I don't care. Thank you.
NEVILLE: We do appreciate your words. Gary Karr, thanks to you, as well as Lance Cooper. Thank you so much for being with us here on TALKBACK LIVE.
All right, everybody, get on those phones and get to that computer. I want to get your e-mails. We're looking at the "Question of the Day." I want to know if you think the U.S. should be patient with Iraq, or if has enough authority to go to war right now. I'll take your calls and letters when we come back. Stay right there.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(APPLAUSE)
NEVILLE: OK, everybody. The "Question of the Day": Should the U.S. patient with Iraq or does it have enough reason to go to war right now? Richard (ph), your answer?
RICHARD: No. They don't have enough proof. They got to show it to the rest of the countries that they don't -- if they have proof, show it. Don't say, (UNINTELLIGIBLE) our intelligence. Show it.
NEVILLE: Thank you very much, sir. You stand up and give me your answer.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, we should go to war. We should (UNINTELLIGIBLE) now before it gets too far. We've given him a chance once before. (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
NEVILLE: Thank you very much. We have some e-mails coming in I want to share with you. Sali in New Mexico says, "The administration should follow through with its threats. If not, then Saddam will always believe that he can get away with anything and everything."
Another e-mail coming in now from Don in Missouri. "Time is up for Iraq. We must act before Saddam acts first."
And that's it for today. We're out of time. I'm Arthel Neville. Join me again tomorrow for Free-For-All Friday. I'll see you then. Judy Woodruff and "INSIDE POLITICS" up next.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
|
