Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live At Daybreak
Casualty Numbers Climbing in Iraq; Memogate Comes to Washington
Aired June 16, 2005 - 06:00 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.
CAROL COSTELLO, CNN ANCHOR: It is Thursday, June 16.
The casualty numbers are climbing. President Bush is shifting strategies and Democrats in Washington want to know how far in advance the war in Iraq was planned.
The Downing Street memo has already made the rounds in Britain. Today, Memogate comes to Washington.
Plus, is the huge tobacco trial settlement up in smoke? We could find out today.
And later, was this unnecessary force? See the beating caught on tape that caused two police officers their jobs.
ANNOUNCER: From the Time Warner Center in New York, this is DAYBREAK with Carol Costello and Chad Myers.
COSTELLO: And good morning to you.
We'll have more on those stories in a moment.
Also ahead, the search of a judge's house in Aruba -- did it reveal any clues to Natalee Holloway's whereabouts?
And what could have happened to Harry is the question being asked in Britain, as new tape of a royal security breach surfaces.
But first, now in the news, in the Iraqi city of Ramadi, five U.S. Marines have been killed by a roadside bomb. The Marines, with the 2nd Division, were involved in a combat operation. In a separate incident, a U.S. sailor with the same Marine division also was killed in Ramadi.
A car bomb goes off in the Iraqi capital, wounding six people. Five of them were Iraqi police on patrol. A police captain says the car was parked on a street and detonated by remote control.
A six hour hostage crisis at an international school in Cambodia ends with at least one child dead. Two of the gunmen also killed. The end came as police rushed a van that had been delivered to the hostage takers.
In Houston, Texas and surrounding counties, it has been a long night without power, a long hot night. Authorities are trying to determine if several house fires are related to the power outage. When power was partially restored, the surge caused sparks to fly, so to speak. And that's because, Chad, everybody had their air conditioner on.
CHAD MYERS, CNN METEOROLOGIST: Right. Hoping for it to come back on.
COSTELLO: Right.
MYERS: The surge came and took it all out again. Yes, so, you've got to turn all that stuff off, although me telling them to turn it off doesn't do any good, because they can't see us.
COSTELLO: Exactly.
MYERS: So, you know, this is kind of a Catch-22.
(WEATHER REPORT)
COSTELLO: Battling identity theft is the focus of a Senate committee this morning. Senators will look at ways to prevent the stealing of data that costs you billions of dollars. A survey by a technology trade group shows many of you do not shop online because you fear identity theft. So, are you concerned about the government snooping into what you read?
The U.S. House of Representatives is. It's voted to restrict federal investigators from using the Patriot Act to look at library records and bookstore sales receipts. President Bush has indicated he will veto the bill if Congress changes Section 215.
A six day sweep in New England has netted nearly 200 illegal immigrants. The immigrants were supposed to have been deported for committing crimes, but had managed to avoid authorities. The number of such arrests could increase because the government is doubling the number of fugitive apprehension teams this summer.
Is the Guantanamo Bay prison camp an international embarrassment or a vital part of the war on terror? That was pretty much the tone of discussion when a Senate committee debated that hot button issue. Republicans stuck to their position that detainees are well treated. Democrats rejected that, saying allegations of mistreatment have hurt the nation's image.
The committee chair said both sides must be considered.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. ARLEN SPECTER (R-PA), JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: While procedural due process is obviously important, we ought to be as sure as we can what steps are being taken so that we do not release detainees from Guantanamo who turn up on battlefields killing Americans. And what's the value of a promise not to bear arms against the United States?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COSTELLO: In the meantime, Democratic Senator Dick Durbin says he is not going to apologize for comparing the actions of U.S. soldiers at Guantanamo with Nazis, Soviet gulags and a mad regime like the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.
President Bush plans to address how things are not going in Iraq. Looking at all time low poll numbers, White House aides have concluded an erosion of public support for the war. Bush will meet with the Iraqi prime minister for the first time next week, as well as focus on Iraq in several upcoming speeches.
Which brings up Memogate.
In Washington, House Democrats initiate hearings on allegations that intelligence was manipulated to justify the war in Iraq. The memo in question was prepared for British Prime Minister Tony Blair. The "London Sunday Times" published the leaked minutes of a July 2002 meeting in Blair's office. That's eight months before the war in Iraq.
Here's an excerpt: "Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action justified by the conjunction of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
Walter Rodgers picks up the Memogate story -- Walter, what has been the reaction to the so-called Downing Street memo in Great Britain?
WALTER RODGERS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Carol, one of the most interesting aspects about this memo is that no one, no one at Downing Street -- that is Prime Minister Blair's office -- no one in the British government is questioning the authenticity of it. The memo, among other things, says that the evidence against Saddam Hussein, both on alleged terrorism ties and on alleged weapons of mass destruction was "thin."
Now, the background for all of this is that Britain's top intelligence officer in July of 2002 went to the United States to meet with his American counterparts. And he -- Sir Richard Dearlove -- and he returned and essentially told the British government -- and that means Prime Minister Tony Blair, and that's the origin of this memo -- that the Americans had already decided to go to war and that President Bush may have been denying publicly that he was going to take the United States to war against Iraq, but privately it was the British intelligence estimate that the Bush administration's decision to go to war was inevitable and that was three months before the Congress authorized it -- Carol.
COSTELLO: How did this memo surface?
RODGERS: I really don't know the trail as to how it became public. But, again, the most interesting thing about this memo is that it is out there. Not even Number Ten Downing Street is saying this is a fake memo or it's false. Everyone here accepts the voracity of the memo. And that is not good news, of course, for the administration in Washington. There are more than a few very interesting aspects of this. And one of them, which reflects on the Blair government, is that at one point in the discussions going into Iraq, the Blair government, Prime Minister Blair was told that the evidence against Saddam was thin and that they could not legally go to war on the basis of just regime change, that is, ousting Saddam Hussein, and thus the Blair government decided well, the conditions have to be created to justify the war and make it legal.
And, of course, that's one of the great sticking points here in Britain, because the large majority of British subjects in this country have long believed this war was illegal and that, indeed, as the memo suggests, the policy created by the Bush administration drove intelligence reports as opposed to intelligence driving policy, which is the way things are supposed to work -- Carol.
COSTELLO: Interesting.
Walter Rodgers live in London this morning.
The American government's case against big tobacco is closed, but the controversy surrounding last minute changes to the case will continue. Democrats are asking for investigations and say that any planned settlement should be scuttled.
CNN chief national correspondent, John King, has more for you.
(BEGIN VIDEO TAPE)
JOHN KING, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Democrats and anti- smoking crusaders charge politics is behind the Justice Department's decision to drastically slash the dollar amount it's seeking from big tobacco.
SEN. FRANK LAUTENBERG (D), NEW JERSEY: It reeks. And it reeks of political interference. It reeks of an administration whose heart isn't really in this case.
KING: Sparking the outrage, a stunning twist in the government's landmark racketeering case against the tobacco industry. The prosecution's charge? For 50 years, cigarette makers conspired to get Americans hooked on nicotine, jeopardizing countless lives by deliberately withholding information about the dangers of smoking.
The suit was filed during the Clinton administration, with Justice Department lawyers demanding a $280 billion payout, punishment, they said, for profits obtained through the alleged fraud. But in February, an appeals court ruled the government couldn't penalize the tobacco industry for past profits. So the focus shifted to getting the companies to fund future anti-smoking initiatives.
A government expert witness estimated those programs would carry a $130 billion price tag. And that's what the Justice Department was seeking when, without warning, it scaled back its request to just $10 billion. Tobacco industry lawyers voiced confusion; anti-smoking advocates disbelief and skepticism, accusing the Bush Justice Department of going easy on the tobacco industry.
BILL CORR, TOBACCO-FREE KIDS CAMPAIGN: The Bush administration and the Bush Justice Department is way too close to the tobacco industry. I don't have any proof that they've made these decisions because of campaign contributions, but they have a long history of opposing this lawsuit and it is inexplicable that they would undermine their own expert witness at the last minute.
KING: Justice Department officials argued the diminished reward request reflects the appellate court ruling that sanctions apply only to future cases of fraud by big tobacco. The $10 billion figure, they say, is just a jumping off point, an initial requirement based on the compelling evidence that the defendants will continue to commit fraudulent acts in the future. They add that all department lawyers involved with previous tobacco cases were recused from this case.
But that doesn't appease critics, who strongly denounced the about face. Their hope now lies with the judge in the case, who can award any amount she sees fit if she finds the tobacco industry liable at all.
(END VIDEO TAPE)
COSTELLO: There is no timetable for the judge's decision. In the meantime, the Justice Department says they'll investigate interference accusations brought by Democrats.
An autopsy finally offers some answers about Terry Schiavo's sudden collapse 15 years ago. But some questions do remain. The coroner's report says Schiavo suffered heart failure. But the precise cause could not be determined. It also said she had massive brain atrophy and that no amount of therapy would have reversed it, and the vision centers of her brain were dead. That means she was blind.
Schiavo's family says they don't know if that's entirely true.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DAVID GIBBS, SCHINDLERS' ATTORNEY: We would not dispute that she was significantly visually impaired. I don't think that she was totally blind. If she was totally blind -- and, again, they in their report believe that medically it would look that way -- I would indicate that she had an amazing sense of hearing, smell and sense, because she was clearly interactive and would clearly respond.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COSTELLO: Terry Schiavo's body was cremated after the autopsy, but her ashes have not yet been interred.
Still to come this hour, a police chase ends with a scuffle caught on tape. See what -- well, you can see what cost two cops their jobs. And soldiers discharged from the U.S. Army. A new lawsuit brings back the old controversy of gays in the military. I'll talk to one of the attorneys involved in the latest case.
And then some airlines are offering more than just a ticket online. But do you really need to buy their travel insurance, too?
But first, here's a look at what else is making news this Tuesday.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COSTELLO: Your news, money, weather and sports.
It's 6:15 Eastern.
Here's what's all new this morning.
In Cambodia, a hostage stand-off at an international school ended with one 5-year-old girl and two armed bandits dead. Police captured the other two gunmen. More than 50 students and teachers were held hostage during the stand-off.
In money news, it seems more of you are giving online. The country's biggest charity says online donations rose 63 percent last year, to more than $166 million. The rise may be partly due to tsunami relief.
In culture, the return of the tour of the King Tut begins today in Los Angeles. Millions are expected to see the exhibit, which will also travel to Fort Lauderdale, Chicago and Philadelphia.
In sports, it is a rout. The Florida Marlins beat the Chicago Cubs 15-5. Florida's Miguel Cabrera went three for six, with a home run and three rivvies (ph) -- Chad.
MYERS: Yes, and your Tigers won 8-2 over San Diego, too, Carol.
COSTELLO: Isn't that fantastic?
MYERS: I'll throw that in there for you.
(WEATHER REPORT)
COSTELLO: Those are the latest headlines for you.
It is getting more difficult to recruit men and women to serve. Both the Army and Marine Corps have missed their recruiting targets.
So what's the answer?
One idea -- get rid of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy and allow gay Americans to serve openly. Right now there is a new bill that will be introduced in the House of Representatives and there is a lawsuit.
Live to Washington and Attorney Sharon Alexander.
She represents 12 gay service members who were kicked out of the military.
Good morning to you.
SHARON ALEXANDER, ATTORNEY: Good morning.
COSTELLO: Before we begin, let's look at the numbers.
Since 1993,9,400 troops have been discharged for being gay.
How many do you think are serving now?
ALEXANDER: Well, the Urban Institute recently did an analysis of the 2000 Census data. And in that analysis, they determined that approximately 65,000 lesbian and gay Americans are serving in the armed forces today. And they also concluded that approximately one million gay veterans live in the United States today. So it's not an insignificant number of people.
COSTELLO: Well, let's look at how the law, let's look at the law and how it stands now, and I'm going to paraphrase. Sexual orientation will not be a bar to service unless manifested by homosexual conduct. The military will discharge members who engage in homosexual conduct or make a statement that they're homosexual.
So you're representing these 12 service members who want to get back in.
What did they do to be discharged?
ALEXANDER: Each service member has a different story. Each of the 12 served and served well during the global war on terrorism. Each of them is there volunteering to serve our country and each of them went out under different circumstances.
The bottom line is any statement, any admission that you're gay or any "homosexual act," which can be something as innocuous as hand holding -- in one of our plaintiffs' case, that was why he was discharged -- anything that indicates you're gay is grounds for a discharge, essentially.
We argue that these people are, as I said, volunteers. They've served and they've served well. They want to serve again. The only relief they're seeking in this lawsuit is the opportunity to serve our country again in a time of war.
COSTELLO: You know, the military justifies this law by saying it is disruptive to have gays in a place where order saves lives. In other words, if it really bothers a fellow soldier that someone is gay, they don't want to deal with this at this critical time.
ALEXANDER: Right. Well, interestingly enough, a large majority of our clients report serving openly to a good number of their colleagues with no incident. One of our plaintiffs in this lawsuit, Jenny Lynn Kopfstein, actually served two years after coming out to her command. And her commanders said -- both of them testified at her board that she was one of the best junior officers they'd ever worked with and they were very, very sorry to see her go.
The idea that gay people contribute negatively to unit cohesion has been disproved by every study that the Department of Defense has ever commissioned on this issue. It's just not true.
COSTELLO: But many lawsuits have been lost before. You're trying kind of a new tactic with your lawsuit. You filed it in Massachusetts, right?
ALEXANDER: We filed it in Massachusetts, but this really has nothing to do with the Massachusetts marriage litigation. I think a lot of people think they're connected. They're unconnected.
Our lawsuit is filed in federal court on federal constitutional grounds, whereas all the Massachusetts marriage litigation is, of course, state law. So there's really no connection. The reason we filed in Massachusetts is because of all of the circuit courts of appeal in the United States who have not yet ruled on "don't ask, don't tell," the only one where we had a plaintiff living was the First Circuit, and that was -- she lives in Boston. So it was really just a matter of coincidence.
COSTELLO: All right, well, we'll see how it goes.
Sharon Alexander, thank you for joining DAYBREAK this morning.
ALEXANDER: Thank you for having me.
COSTELLO: Still to come, if you do much flying, if you're in the airport right now, stick around to find out whether you should pay for ticket insurance. Don't stick around if you're going to miss your plane, though.
And the security surrounding a prince is in question this morning because of this tape. Was Harry in danger at school?
Before we go to break, though, we'd like to say good morning to Houston, where the lights are back on for some 100,000 people after a huge storm knocked out power.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COSTELLO: Time for a little "Business Buzz."
Jurors in the grand larceny trial of two former Tyco executives will be back at it later this morning for a tenth day. In deliberations yesterday, they asked to see exhibits related to the defendants' compensation.
Drug maker Pfizer is buying Vicuron Pharmaceuticals for nearly $2 billion. Vicuron makes drugs that treat infections. The company has two products under regulatory review right now.
One of the big three automakers could be heading for a showdown with its unions.
Carrie Lee is here with the latest on that situation.
CARRIE LEE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Things are really heating up here, Carol.
We know the situation isn't good. Well now General Motors is reportedly warning the United Auto Workers union that it could cut health benefits even if the two sides don't reach an agreement on cost cutting. And the UAW is reportedly warning G.M. that it could face a strike if it tries to push too hard.
Now, the union is saying it's willing to work with G.M. but thinks the company's goal of having a plan in place by the end of the month is unrealistic. G.M. is hoping to cut about a billion dollars from its health care costs, which it expects to be $5.6 billion total this year.
Meanwhile, health benefits to retired workers is also a huge problem. It reportedly has $77 billion of obligation to long-term retiree and health care people. And two-and-a-half -- they have two- and-a-half retired workers for every single active employee.
COSTELLO: Wow!
LEE: Now, G.M.'s stock has recovered recently, but there's starting to be a little bit of speculation -- in fact, there's an article on our Web site, money.cnn.com, talking about what would happen if the company is removed from the Dow 30.
Speculative at this point, let's be very clear. But, you know, it's happened before. It happened with AT&T, Eastman Kodak, International Paper a little over a year ago. So the question would be, well, which company would replace it? It would probably have to be Ford, and we know they're not in such great shape either.
COSTELLO: They're not doing well either.
Right.
LEE: But still, there's a little bit of buzz about that, if it would happen to be removed.
COSTELLO: Interesting.
LEE: Yes.
COSTELLO: A quick look at the futures?
LEE: We are keeping an eye on futures, as always, this morning. Looking up a bit for today's session. We did see a little bit of buying at the close yesterday. We'll get some housing data, a look at weekly jobless claims, more economic data. So that's going to drive the session.
COSTELLO: OK, thank you, Carrie Lee.
LEE: OK.
COSTELLO: Some of the major airlines have found a new revenue stream -- selling travel insurance on non-refundable tickets. It sounds like a good idea.
"USA Today" travel reporter Ben Mutzabaugh joins us.
Ben, good morning. BEN MUTZABAUGH, "USA TODAY" TRAVEL REPORTER: Good morning.
COSTELLO: So, should I buy insurance on my airline ticket?
MUTZABAUGH: Well, it only will probably be beneficial to you in a very limited number of circumstances. There are so many, you know, they always say read the fine print, and this is one of them. There are so many only if clauses in this insurance that cover -- that apply to covered conditions.
COSTELLO: OK. Let's start at the beginning.
How much is the insurance?
MUTZABAUGH: It's roughly 4 percent, in most cases it's 4 percent of your actual ticket cost. So if you -- for every $100 you spend in air fare, you pay $4 for insurance. So a $1,000 ticket, it's $40.
COSTELLO: Got you.
So, you said fine print.
So what do I get for that? I mean if I change my mind about travel, do I get my money back?
MUTZABAUGH: No. No, no. If you change your mind, you're out of luck. And that's part of the airlines' goal, to push you into buying a higher priced ticket anyway, that has less rules.
This covers things like severe medical illness that's unexpected. And even there, it's only if you haven't been treated for a condition that you've already -- if you're sick and it's something you've been treated for in the past 120 days, it won't cover it. It covers traffic accidents, but only if it occurs on the way to the airport.
COSTELLO: Oh come on.
MUTZABAUGH: Yes. Yes. It's -- they're really limiting the risk. You know...
COSTELLO: So if you're in a traffic accident and you end up in the hospital, it doesn't cover that unless you're on the way to the airport? MUTZABAUGH: Only if you're on the way to the airport. And it -- that's pretty standard for these things. Terrorism is also covered, but it's only if your destination is hit within 30 days of your departure. So, you know -- and once you buy the insurance, if the destination you're going to, the country you're going to has had a terrorist incident within the previous six months, they won't cover that destination.
So there's a lot of fine print.
COSTELLO: And the last one here, if your employer terminates you through no fault of your own.
MUTZABAUGH: Right. And you've had to have worked at your employer for at least three years for most of these policies, as well.
COSTELLO: So is there any reason to purchase this at all?
MUTZABAUGH: Well, it does cover you in severe medical situations. So if you have an expensive ticket and you're worried that some unforeseen illness might come up and keep you from traveling, that's about the only good reason that you could have this insurance. Otherwise, it seems as though most of the covered events are pretty particular and you'd have to meet a lot of conditions to get covered for it or to get reimbursed for that.
Now, the interesting thing is that if you do have a severe medical illness or event that comes up, most airlines are probably going to waive their change fees anyway. Now, it does buy you some peace of mind in the fact that you may not have to negotiate with an airline in the middle of a medical emergency. But, yes, it's a little questionable.
COSTELLO: Yes.
OK, so we're not buying it.
Ben Mutzabaugh, thank you very much, from "USA Today."
MUTZABAUGH: You're welcome.
COSTELLO: The airline passenger screening program is under review by the Homeland Security Department. The Department wants to see if privacy laws are being violated. In some instances, the program failed to properly disclose its use of commercial databases.
Still to come on DAYBREAK, a judge, his son and a search in Aruba. Are police any closer to finding Natalee Holloway?
And the case that's captivating a community four decades later. A former Ku Klux Klansman goes on trial, finally.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
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 June 16, 2005 - 06:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
CAROL COSTELLO, CNN ANCHOR: It is Thursday, June 16.
The casualty numbers are climbing. President Bush is shifting strategies and Democrats in Washington want to know how far in advance the war in Iraq was planned.
The Downing Street memo has already made the rounds in Britain. Today, Memogate comes to Washington.
Plus, is the huge tobacco trial settlement up in smoke? We could find out today.
And later, was this unnecessary force? See the beating caught on tape that caused two police officers their jobs.
ANNOUNCER: From the Time Warner Center in New York, this is DAYBREAK with Carol Costello and Chad Myers.
COSTELLO: And good morning to you.
We'll have more on those stories in a moment.
Also ahead, the search of a judge's house in Aruba -- did it reveal any clues to Natalee Holloway's whereabouts?
And what could have happened to Harry is the question being asked in Britain, as new tape of a royal security breach surfaces.
But first, now in the news, in the Iraqi city of Ramadi, five U.S. Marines have been killed by a roadside bomb. The Marines, with the 2nd Division, were involved in a combat operation. In a separate incident, a U.S. sailor with the same Marine division also was killed in Ramadi.
A car bomb goes off in the Iraqi capital, wounding six people. Five of them were Iraqi police on patrol. A police captain says the car was parked on a street and detonated by remote control.
A six hour hostage crisis at an international school in Cambodia ends with at least one child dead. Two of the gunmen also killed. The end came as police rushed a van that had been delivered to the hostage takers.
In Houston, Texas and surrounding counties, it has been a long night without power, a long hot night. Authorities are trying to determine if several house fires are related to the power outage. When power was partially restored, the surge caused sparks to fly, so to speak. And that's because, Chad, everybody had their air conditioner on.
CHAD MYERS, CNN METEOROLOGIST: Right. Hoping for it to come back on.
COSTELLO: Right.
MYERS: The surge came and took it all out again. Yes, so, you've got to turn all that stuff off, although me telling them to turn it off doesn't do any good, because they can't see us.
COSTELLO: Exactly.
MYERS: So, you know, this is kind of a Catch-22.
(WEATHER REPORT)
COSTELLO: Battling identity theft is the focus of a Senate committee this morning. Senators will look at ways to prevent the stealing of data that costs you billions of dollars. A survey by a technology trade group shows many of you do not shop online because you fear identity theft. So, are you concerned about the government snooping into what you read?
The U.S. House of Representatives is. It's voted to restrict federal investigators from using the Patriot Act to look at library records and bookstore sales receipts. President Bush has indicated he will veto the bill if Congress changes Section 215.
A six day sweep in New England has netted nearly 200 illegal immigrants. The immigrants were supposed to have been deported for committing crimes, but had managed to avoid authorities. The number of such arrests could increase because the government is doubling the number of fugitive apprehension teams this summer.
Is the Guantanamo Bay prison camp an international embarrassment or a vital part of the war on terror? That was pretty much the tone of discussion when a Senate committee debated that hot button issue. Republicans stuck to their position that detainees are well treated. Democrats rejected that, saying allegations of mistreatment have hurt the nation's image.
The committee chair said both sides must be considered.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. ARLEN SPECTER (R-PA), JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: While procedural due process is obviously important, we ought to be as sure as we can what steps are being taken so that we do not release detainees from Guantanamo who turn up on battlefields killing Americans. And what's the value of a promise not to bear arms against the United States?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COSTELLO: In the meantime, Democratic Senator Dick Durbin says he is not going to apologize for comparing the actions of U.S. soldiers at Guantanamo with Nazis, Soviet gulags and a mad regime like the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.
President Bush plans to address how things are not going in Iraq. Looking at all time low poll numbers, White House aides have concluded an erosion of public support for the war. Bush will meet with the Iraqi prime minister for the first time next week, as well as focus on Iraq in several upcoming speeches.
Which brings up Memogate.
In Washington, House Democrats initiate hearings on allegations that intelligence was manipulated to justify the war in Iraq. The memo in question was prepared for British Prime Minister Tony Blair. The "London Sunday Times" published the leaked minutes of a July 2002 meeting in Blair's office. That's eight months before the war in Iraq.
Here's an excerpt: "Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action justified by the conjunction of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
Walter Rodgers picks up the Memogate story -- Walter, what has been the reaction to the so-called Downing Street memo in Great Britain?
WALTER RODGERS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Carol, one of the most interesting aspects about this memo is that no one, no one at Downing Street -- that is Prime Minister Blair's office -- no one in the British government is questioning the authenticity of it. The memo, among other things, says that the evidence against Saddam Hussein, both on alleged terrorism ties and on alleged weapons of mass destruction was "thin."
Now, the background for all of this is that Britain's top intelligence officer in July of 2002 went to the United States to meet with his American counterparts. And he -- Sir Richard Dearlove -- and he returned and essentially told the British government -- and that means Prime Minister Tony Blair, and that's the origin of this memo -- that the Americans had already decided to go to war and that President Bush may have been denying publicly that he was going to take the United States to war against Iraq, but privately it was the British intelligence estimate that the Bush administration's decision to go to war was inevitable and that was three months before the Congress authorized it -- Carol.
COSTELLO: How did this memo surface?
RODGERS: I really don't know the trail as to how it became public. But, again, the most interesting thing about this memo is that it is out there. Not even Number Ten Downing Street is saying this is a fake memo or it's false. Everyone here accepts the voracity of the memo. And that is not good news, of course, for the administration in Washington. There are more than a few very interesting aspects of this. And one of them, which reflects on the Blair government, is that at one point in the discussions going into Iraq, the Blair government, Prime Minister Blair was told that the evidence against Saddam was thin and that they could not legally go to war on the basis of just regime change, that is, ousting Saddam Hussein, and thus the Blair government decided well, the conditions have to be created to justify the war and make it legal.
And, of course, that's one of the great sticking points here in Britain, because the large majority of British subjects in this country have long believed this war was illegal and that, indeed, as the memo suggests, the policy created by the Bush administration drove intelligence reports as opposed to intelligence driving policy, which is the way things are supposed to work -- Carol.
COSTELLO: Interesting.
Walter Rodgers live in London this morning.
The American government's case against big tobacco is closed, but the controversy surrounding last minute changes to the case will continue. Democrats are asking for investigations and say that any planned settlement should be scuttled.
CNN chief national correspondent, John King, has more for you.
(BEGIN VIDEO TAPE)
JOHN KING, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Democrats and anti- smoking crusaders charge politics is behind the Justice Department's decision to drastically slash the dollar amount it's seeking from big tobacco.
SEN. FRANK LAUTENBERG (D), NEW JERSEY: It reeks. And it reeks of political interference. It reeks of an administration whose heart isn't really in this case.
KING: Sparking the outrage, a stunning twist in the government's landmark racketeering case against the tobacco industry. The prosecution's charge? For 50 years, cigarette makers conspired to get Americans hooked on nicotine, jeopardizing countless lives by deliberately withholding information about the dangers of smoking.
The suit was filed during the Clinton administration, with Justice Department lawyers demanding a $280 billion payout, punishment, they said, for profits obtained through the alleged fraud. But in February, an appeals court ruled the government couldn't penalize the tobacco industry for past profits. So the focus shifted to getting the companies to fund future anti-smoking initiatives.
A government expert witness estimated those programs would carry a $130 billion price tag. And that's what the Justice Department was seeking when, without warning, it scaled back its request to just $10 billion. Tobacco industry lawyers voiced confusion; anti-smoking advocates disbelief and skepticism, accusing the Bush Justice Department of going easy on the tobacco industry.
BILL CORR, TOBACCO-FREE KIDS CAMPAIGN: The Bush administration and the Bush Justice Department is way too close to the tobacco industry. I don't have any proof that they've made these decisions because of campaign contributions, but they have a long history of opposing this lawsuit and it is inexplicable that they would undermine their own expert witness at the last minute.
KING: Justice Department officials argued the diminished reward request reflects the appellate court ruling that sanctions apply only to future cases of fraud by big tobacco. The $10 billion figure, they say, is just a jumping off point, an initial requirement based on the compelling evidence that the defendants will continue to commit fraudulent acts in the future. They add that all department lawyers involved with previous tobacco cases were recused from this case.
But that doesn't appease critics, who strongly denounced the about face. Their hope now lies with the judge in the case, who can award any amount she sees fit if she finds the tobacco industry liable at all.
(END VIDEO TAPE)
COSTELLO: There is no timetable for the judge's decision. In the meantime, the Justice Department says they'll investigate interference accusations brought by Democrats.
An autopsy finally offers some answers about Terry Schiavo's sudden collapse 15 years ago. But some questions do remain. The coroner's report says Schiavo suffered heart failure. But the precise cause could not be determined. It also said she had massive brain atrophy and that no amount of therapy would have reversed it, and the vision centers of her brain were dead. That means she was blind.
Schiavo's family says they don't know if that's entirely true.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DAVID GIBBS, SCHINDLERS' ATTORNEY: We would not dispute that she was significantly visually impaired. I don't think that she was totally blind. If she was totally blind -- and, again, they in their report believe that medically it would look that way -- I would indicate that she had an amazing sense of hearing, smell and sense, because she was clearly interactive and would clearly respond.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COSTELLO: Terry Schiavo's body was cremated after the autopsy, but her ashes have not yet been interred.
Still to come this hour, a police chase ends with a scuffle caught on tape. See what -- well, you can see what cost two cops their jobs. And soldiers discharged from the U.S. Army. A new lawsuit brings back the old controversy of gays in the military. I'll talk to one of the attorneys involved in the latest case.
And then some airlines are offering more than just a ticket online. But do you really need to buy their travel insurance, too?
But first, here's a look at what else is making news this Tuesday.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COSTELLO: Your news, money, weather and sports.
It's 6:15 Eastern.
Here's what's all new this morning.
In Cambodia, a hostage stand-off at an international school ended with one 5-year-old girl and two armed bandits dead. Police captured the other two gunmen. More than 50 students and teachers were held hostage during the stand-off.
In money news, it seems more of you are giving online. The country's biggest charity says online donations rose 63 percent last year, to more than $166 million. The rise may be partly due to tsunami relief.
In culture, the return of the tour of the King Tut begins today in Los Angeles. Millions are expected to see the exhibit, which will also travel to Fort Lauderdale, Chicago and Philadelphia.
In sports, it is a rout. The Florida Marlins beat the Chicago Cubs 15-5. Florida's Miguel Cabrera went three for six, with a home run and three rivvies (ph) -- Chad.
MYERS: Yes, and your Tigers won 8-2 over San Diego, too, Carol.
COSTELLO: Isn't that fantastic?
MYERS: I'll throw that in there for you.
(WEATHER REPORT)
COSTELLO: Those are the latest headlines for you.
It is getting more difficult to recruit men and women to serve. Both the Army and Marine Corps have missed their recruiting targets.
So what's the answer?
One idea -- get rid of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy and allow gay Americans to serve openly. Right now there is a new bill that will be introduced in the House of Representatives and there is a lawsuit.
Live to Washington and Attorney Sharon Alexander.
She represents 12 gay service members who were kicked out of the military.
Good morning to you.
SHARON ALEXANDER, ATTORNEY: Good morning.
COSTELLO: Before we begin, let's look at the numbers.
Since 1993,9,400 troops have been discharged for being gay.
How many do you think are serving now?
ALEXANDER: Well, the Urban Institute recently did an analysis of the 2000 Census data. And in that analysis, they determined that approximately 65,000 lesbian and gay Americans are serving in the armed forces today. And they also concluded that approximately one million gay veterans live in the United States today. So it's not an insignificant number of people.
COSTELLO: Well, let's look at how the law, let's look at the law and how it stands now, and I'm going to paraphrase. Sexual orientation will not be a bar to service unless manifested by homosexual conduct. The military will discharge members who engage in homosexual conduct or make a statement that they're homosexual.
So you're representing these 12 service members who want to get back in.
What did they do to be discharged?
ALEXANDER: Each service member has a different story. Each of the 12 served and served well during the global war on terrorism. Each of them is there volunteering to serve our country and each of them went out under different circumstances.
The bottom line is any statement, any admission that you're gay or any "homosexual act," which can be something as innocuous as hand holding -- in one of our plaintiffs' case, that was why he was discharged -- anything that indicates you're gay is grounds for a discharge, essentially.
We argue that these people are, as I said, volunteers. They've served and they've served well. They want to serve again. The only relief they're seeking in this lawsuit is the opportunity to serve our country again in a time of war.
COSTELLO: You know, the military justifies this law by saying it is disruptive to have gays in a place where order saves lives. In other words, if it really bothers a fellow soldier that someone is gay, they don't want to deal with this at this critical time.
ALEXANDER: Right. Well, interestingly enough, a large majority of our clients report serving openly to a good number of their colleagues with no incident. One of our plaintiffs in this lawsuit, Jenny Lynn Kopfstein, actually served two years after coming out to her command. And her commanders said -- both of them testified at her board that she was one of the best junior officers they'd ever worked with and they were very, very sorry to see her go.
The idea that gay people contribute negatively to unit cohesion has been disproved by every study that the Department of Defense has ever commissioned on this issue. It's just not true.
COSTELLO: But many lawsuits have been lost before. You're trying kind of a new tactic with your lawsuit. You filed it in Massachusetts, right?
ALEXANDER: We filed it in Massachusetts, but this really has nothing to do with the Massachusetts marriage litigation. I think a lot of people think they're connected. They're unconnected.
Our lawsuit is filed in federal court on federal constitutional grounds, whereas all the Massachusetts marriage litigation is, of course, state law. So there's really no connection. The reason we filed in Massachusetts is because of all of the circuit courts of appeal in the United States who have not yet ruled on "don't ask, don't tell," the only one where we had a plaintiff living was the First Circuit, and that was -- she lives in Boston. So it was really just a matter of coincidence.
COSTELLO: All right, well, we'll see how it goes.
Sharon Alexander, thank you for joining DAYBREAK this morning.
ALEXANDER: Thank you for having me.
COSTELLO: Still to come, if you do much flying, if you're in the airport right now, stick around to find out whether you should pay for ticket insurance. Don't stick around if you're going to miss your plane, though.
And the security surrounding a prince is in question this morning because of this tape. Was Harry in danger at school?
Before we go to break, though, we'd like to say good morning to Houston, where the lights are back on for some 100,000 people after a huge storm knocked out power.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COSTELLO: Time for a little "Business Buzz."
Jurors in the grand larceny trial of two former Tyco executives will be back at it later this morning for a tenth day. In deliberations yesterday, they asked to see exhibits related to the defendants' compensation.
Drug maker Pfizer is buying Vicuron Pharmaceuticals for nearly $2 billion. Vicuron makes drugs that treat infections. The company has two products under regulatory review right now.
One of the big three automakers could be heading for a showdown with its unions.
Carrie Lee is here with the latest on that situation.
CARRIE LEE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Things are really heating up here, Carol.
We know the situation isn't good. Well now General Motors is reportedly warning the United Auto Workers union that it could cut health benefits even if the two sides don't reach an agreement on cost cutting. And the UAW is reportedly warning G.M. that it could face a strike if it tries to push too hard.
Now, the union is saying it's willing to work with G.M. but thinks the company's goal of having a plan in place by the end of the month is unrealistic. G.M. is hoping to cut about a billion dollars from its health care costs, which it expects to be $5.6 billion total this year.
Meanwhile, health benefits to retired workers is also a huge problem. It reportedly has $77 billion of obligation to long-term retiree and health care people. And two-and-a-half -- they have two- and-a-half retired workers for every single active employee.
COSTELLO: Wow!
LEE: Now, G.M.'s stock has recovered recently, but there's starting to be a little bit of speculation -- in fact, there's an article on our Web site, money.cnn.com, talking about what would happen if the company is removed from the Dow 30.
Speculative at this point, let's be very clear. But, you know, it's happened before. It happened with AT&T, Eastman Kodak, International Paper a little over a year ago. So the question would be, well, which company would replace it? It would probably have to be Ford, and we know they're not in such great shape either.
COSTELLO: They're not doing well either.
Right.
LEE: But still, there's a little bit of buzz about that, if it would happen to be removed.
COSTELLO: Interesting.
LEE: Yes.
COSTELLO: A quick look at the futures?
LEE: We are keeping an eye on futures, as always, this morning. Looking up a bit for today's session. We did see a little bit of buying at the close yesterday. We'll get some housing data, a look at weekly jobless claims, more economic data. So that's going to drive the session.
COSTELLO: OK, thank you, Carrie Lee.
LEE: OK.
COSTELLO: Some of the major airlines have found a new revenue stream -- selling travel insurance on non-refundable tickets. It sounds like a good idea.
"USA Today" travel reporter Ben Mutzabaugh joins us.
Ben, good morning. BEN MUTZABAUGH, "USA TODAY" TRAVEL REPORTER: Good morning.
COSTELLO: So, should I buy insurance on my airline ticket?
MUTZABAUGH: Well, it only will probably be beneficial to you in a very limited number of circumstances. There are so many, you know, they always say read the fine print, and this is one of them. There are so many only if clauses in this insurance that cover -- that apply to covered conditions.
COSTELLO: OK. Let's start at the beginning.
How much is the insurance?
MUTZABAUGH: It's roughly 4 percent, in most cases it's 4 percent of your actual ticket cost. So if you -- for every $100 you spend in air fare, you pay $4 for insurance. So a $1,000 ticket, it's $40.
COSTELLO: Got you.
So, you said fine print.
So what do I get for that? I mean if I change my mind about travel, do I get my money back?
MUTZABAUGH: No. No, no. If you change your mind, you're out of luck. And that's part of the airlines' goal, to push you into buying a higher priced ticket anyway, that has less rules.
This covers things like severe medical illness that's unexpected. And even there, it's only if you haven't been treated for a condition that you've already -- if you're sick and it's something you've been treated for in the past 120 days, it won't cover it. It covers traffic accidents, but only if it occurs on the way to the airport.
COSTELLO: Oh come on.
MUTZABAUGH: Yes. Yes. It's -- they're really limiting the risk. You know...
COSTELLO: So if you're in a traffic accident and you end up in the hospital, it doesn't cover that unless you're on the way to the airport? MUTZABAUGH: Only if you're on the way to the airport. And it -- that's pretty standard for these things. Terrorism is also covered, but it's only if your destination is hit within 30 days of your departure. So, you know -- and once you buy the insurance, if the destination you're going to, the country you're going to has had a terrorist incident within the previous six months, they won't cover that destination.
So there's a lot of fine print.
COSTELLO: And the last one here, if your employer terminates you through no fault of your own.
MUTZABAUGH: Right. And you've had to have worked at your employer for at least three years for most of these policies, as well.
COSTELLO: So is there any reason to purchase this at all?
MUTZABAUGH: Well, it does cover you in severe medical situations. So if you have an expensive ticket and you're worried that some unforeseen illness might come up and keep you from traveling, that's about the only good reason that you could have this insurance. Otherwise, it seems as though most of the covered events are pretty particular and you'd have to meet a lot of conditions to get covered for it or to get reimbursed for that.
Now, the interesting thing is that if you do have a severe medical illness or event that comes up, most airlines are probably going to waive their change fees anyway. Now, it does buy you some peace of mind in the fact that you may not have to negotiate with an airline in the middle of a medical emergency. But, yes, it's a little questionable.
COSTELLO: Yes.
OK, so we're not buying it.
Ben Mutzabaugh, thank you very much, from "USA Today."
MUTZABAUGH: You're welcome.
COSTELLO: The airline passenger screening program is under review by the Homeland Security Department. The Department wants to see if privacy laws are being violated. In some instances, the program failed to properly disclose its use of commercial databases.
Still to come on DAYBREAK, a judge, his son and a search in Aruba. Are police any closer to finding Natalee Holloway?
And the case that's captivating a community four decades later. A former Ku Klux Klansman goes on trial, finally.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
