rrenttv

despite numerous pleas from high-ranking officials in both the obama and bush administrations that we need to bolster our defenses against potential cyberattacks that would target crucial life sustaining infrastructure owned by private companies including electric utilities chemical plants and water systems the senate today failed to get the 60 necessary votes to avoid a republican filibuster of the cybersecurity act. here are the bill's cosponsors, republican susan collins and independent joe lieberman.

>> all of the experts tell us it is not a matter of if a cyberattack is going to be launched. it is when it is going to occur. >> this is one of those days when i fear for our country and i'm not proud of the united states senate. >> eliot: republicans in large part blocked the vote out of a desire to protect private industries from requirements to meet higher security regulations meaning today was another disgrace for a chamber of congress and another victory for the chamber of commerce. here to discuss the implications of the senate's inaction today is council with the aclu's washington legislative office michelle richardson and senior tech editor with "the huffington post,byian" ca. thank you for your time tonight. by bianca, what would this bill have done to protect the utilities, the grid, banking systems? >> the first thing to understand is that some 85% of our critical infrastructure is controlled by

private companies so that means the water that we're getting our electricity, all of the things that keep us happy, warm and safe. really anybody who is anybody in this national security world is telling us that we're headed for some sort of bruce willis disaster scenario and that you know, it is really is a matter of not if but when. so what this is designed to do is kind of create some optional standards originally mandatory standards but now optional standards to help businesses improve their security practices and also share some information between private businesses and government to -- on a critical infrastructure threat. >> eliot: i have to follow up with you. it doesn't sound so heinous so difficult. it doesn't sound as though it is a major imposition on business. what was the chamber of commerce opposition that led to a sufficient number of republicans to oppose even bringing this to the floor for a vote? >> their objection was it is going to be onerous on businesses, it would be this back door into more government interference of what was going on with businesses.

but then there were -- other objections republicans that voted against it also said the supporters are trying to steam roll it through and of course, there is a big election coming up or so i hear. >> eliot: this might have been a partisan ploy to prevent the white house for getting credit for something that would be viewed as important. >> cybersecurity has been near and dear to the obama administration since the beginning. >> eliot: michelle, the aclu traditionally has been in opposition to many of these cybersecurity bills because they almost of necessity permit sort of government invasion and access to private information that gives the aclu rightly so some concern. what brought you over in this regard and why do you not support this bill? >> well, the sponsors of the bill were with the administration and advocates to make substantial changes to make sure privacy was substantially protected in this bill. they made sure that companies needed to make reasonable efforts to protect private

information that civilian agencies would run domestic programs and that the government couldn't repurpose very sensitive internet data for all sorts of reasons. the bill turned out pretty decent as far as privacy was concerned which led to a number of republicans opposing the bill saying that it actually went too far on privacy and that they preferred an approach that would allow the companies more leeway to decide whether the privacy would be protected. >> eliot: in other words there were some who wanted to give private entities greater latitude in terms of what they could do with the invasiveness in their capacity to get access to individual information and then turn that over either to the government, the nsa or the other agencies. >> one of the battles we see in the fall on information sharing is over whether the military or the civilians are going to run this program. and a lot of republicans are adamant that these companies will go directly to the nsa or other components of the defense department so that the military

can directly collect information of innocent americans. >> eliot: although what we've been hearing on this show and particularly the nsa has access to anything anyway. in a way putting up another boundary may or may not be a futile effort. bianca, it does seem as though cyberattacks are part and parcel of on-going military strategies. if you look at the effort to prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon and the viruses we've implanted in their systems, it is almost inevitable as you say that nations will retaliate against us and we are incredibly vulnerable from water to electricity to our hospitals and bank systems. what meaningfully can be done to erect a barrier to that access from foreign nations? >> there is always canned food, right? bunkers. no but you know, what's interesting is you point out there is the fear of retaliation from governments but i think what's tricky about this scenario is it is not just governments. there are all sorts of hackers. you look at what happened with

private companies and you know, it could be a group of people that have come together to teach them a lesson or prove that they can get into these systems. so for sure, there is the issue of a foreign policy threat as it regards to it. >> eliot: whether or not it is a foreign government or private entity, how can you erect a barrier so a water utility, for instance can insure it is not open to an attack. >> this is one effort to do so let's make sure our defenses are good enough. maybe they're not great but we're not leaving ourselves wide open. we're locking our doors and we're not just making -- not leaving them wide open. the idea with this bill was to do that, right. that was one approach. let's make sure they've got some baseline security here. we can take it from there. so you know, as far as what the kind of -- also let's share information so we can all do this better. >> eliot: michelle, let me come back to you for the last couple of moments here. there's been so much information recently. ed marquee's request showed 1.3

million requests have been made to law enforcement for information on cell phones. who the whole privacy issue seems to have fallen off the political agenda. you don't hear people debating it even though i have the sense that increasingly we should be antsy about what government can and can't get about us. where has the sort of public outrage been on this issue? >> well, it is growing over time as we get more information. and the government is getting away with these programs because they're being conducted in secret. and this 1.3 million number has been around for years. but it just came public recently because a congressman demanded it. as you see more and more information becoming available about what they're getting and what they're doing with our information, you'll see the public pushing back more. >> eliot: indeed, my view is certainly they should because the issue of privacy is something that should crystallize via subject of massive debate in years ahead. michelle richardson and senior tech editor of "the huffington post," bianca boscer, thank you

for your time tonight. >> chick-fil-a opens a location in a state you've never heard of. viewfinder coming up next.

she's every 5-year-old who ever jumped in a pool and didn't want to get out. ♪ ♪ every coach, every rival who ever pushed her. she's the tip of a spear that goes all the way back to the beginning. it's amazing how far you can go with a little help along the way. td ameritrade. proud sponsor of the 2012 u.s. olympic team.

>> eliot: coming up, the unrest in syria continues but first, colbert re-creates olympic gymnastics, shepard smith doesn't seem to appreciate appreciation day and the real reason mitt romney won't release his tax returns. when it doesn't fit anywhere else, we put it in the viewfinder. >> we now know that the romney campaign will not release anymore of the candidate's tax returns. ♪ >> receipts. the receipts, where are they? i know they're in this closet. >> mr. romney, please show us your returns. >> the taxes. and 2001 to 2010, the taxes. where are they? i know they're in this closet. >> it is 3:00 a.m. >> put this off long enough. >> why governor mitt romney is refusing to release all of his tax returns.

>> the american public can't find out. i can't show my old tax returns because i can't remember where i put them. help me, ann! >> washington is abuzz about if thinking there's something terrible in there. >> i can't find my tax receipts. >> because we don't pay taxes. we're rich. >> oh, that's right! >> supporters of the restaurant chain chick-fil-a flocking to establishments all across the country for appreciation day. >> of course, all of the biased, real reporters and lapdoggies in the mainstream media says quote-unquote anti-gay. >> it is national badminton day. forget national day of intolerance. let's say with badminton. >> a brilliant performance. a brilliant performance, why am i just talking about this? let's take a look at the cease and desist letters i've gotten from the olympics telling me i can't use their footage. >> it is going to be close coming down to the touch. and the winner is missy. missy. 17 years of age.

missy franklin has won her first individual gold at the olympic games. [ cheering ] >> the new olympic champion. here is chad's father, burt. what a performance. >> unbelievable! i've never been so happy. what a beautiful boy. oh my god. >> eliot: maybe you should give the parents more airtime. a former u.n. secretary general walks away from syria coming up next.

how can you say you're in love with her? she gives me snickers peanut butter squared and i eat it. it's snickers with creamy peanut butter, would you like one? let's just keep an open mind. [ groans ] [ male announcer ] if you like peanut butter and chocolate, you'll love peanut butter and snickers. try snickers peanut butter squared. if you have copd like i do you know how hard it can be to breathe and what that feels like. copd includes chronic bronchitis and emphysema. spiriva helps control my copd symptoms by keeping my airways open a full 24 hours. plus, it reduces copd flare-ups. spiriva is the only once-daily inhaled copd maintenance treatment that does both. and it's steroid-free. spiriva does not replace fast-acting

inhalers for sudden symptoms. tell your doctor if you have kidney problems glaucoma, trouble urinating, or an enlarged prostate. these may worsen with spiriva. discuss all medicines you take, even eye drops. stop taking spiriva and seek immediate medical help if your breathing suddenly worsens your throat or tongue swells you get hives, vision changes or eye pain, or problems passing urine. other side effects include dry mouth and constipation. nothing can reverse copd. spiriva helps me breathe better. does breathing with copd weigh you down? ask your doctor if spiriva can help. if you have an opinion, you better back it up. >>eliot spitzer takes on politics. >>science and republicans do not mix. >>now it's your turn at the only online forum with a direct line to eliot spitzer. >>join the debate now. >> eliot: things continue to

deteriorate in syria today as at least 130 people were killed as fighting continues to escalate. as we told you last night earlier this year, president obama signed a secret order authorizing u.s. nonweapon support for syrian rebels. nonweapon being the key for the white house and i quote... but whether the white house likes it or not, bigger weapons are entering the fray. new reports of rebels using captured tanks in aleppo while the regime responds with fighter jets and helicopter gunships. the escalation comes on the same day that kofi annan stepped down as special u.n. syrian peace envoy. he chastised the u.n. security counsel for its inability to get any meaningful sanctions passed. >> at a time when we need -- when the syrian people desperately need action, there continues to be finger pointing and name-calling in the security

council. >> for more on the escalation in syria, let's bring in p.j. crowley, former secretary of state for president obama as well as former special assistant to president clinton. now a professor at george washington university. thank you for your time this evening. the situation is dire getting worse. kofi annan stepping back. now what? how does this move forward backwards or sideways in the near term? >> i don't think it changes the fundamentals. we've known for -- unfortunately for weeks, the annan plan was failing not because it is not the right answer but because key countries aren't following it first and foremost. syria with the active protection of russia and china. those two countries have made sure that there will be no meaningful action coming out of the security council so to an extent what kofi annan did today because countries hiding behind his efforts russia in particular, he stepped off the stage and said back to you security council and back to you arab league.

you guys have to decide what to do. >> eliot: with kofi annan gone, will there be additional pressure on russia or sufficient pressure on russia for them not to veto a security council resolution that would permit some form of concerted action? >> i'm not sure it is going to be possible to have any meaningful action of the united nations. a year ago there was meaningful and concerted action through the u.n. on libya russia in particular and china are determined to make sure the u.n. does not play a significant role in syria. so as the united states has said in recent days and weeks it now has to look to like-minded countries, perhaps other international institutions to be the foundation for whatever happens going forward. i think the arab league will be a key focus. >> before we get to the arab league, this is a different paradigm than either libya or egypt, the other -- libya, you had concerted efforts through nato which brought down cad of afy and in egypt, you had the

military stepping down which led to mubarak's failure. here you have full-fledged civil war, the military standing aside assad. internationally nothing happening. this could go on for weeks months almost indefinitely. >> i think it is going to grind on for some time. but that said, obviously you have the free syrian army and the opposition. they're gaining strength it seems to me. they're able to hold territory now in a city like aleppo, they're able to fight the regime to a draw. and the regime unfortunately continues to be able to maintain the support of the security services. that's going to be the key issue. at some point in time if the security services in the context of egypt the military needs to eventually determine that their best interest was not the same as mubarak's. at some point in time, we hope there will be a tipping point where the security service will make the same calculation and push assad to the side but i think that's still weeks or

months off. >> eliot: there should be have been some defections they get a fair bit of attention in the western press. do you sense there is increasing trend, increasing number of defections or is it still just the occasional lieutenant general here and there? >> i think the defections are meaningful. that said, what you do see is escalations on both sides. it is very worrying that the syrians are now bringing out hardware and heavy weaponry that they've actually maintained part for some time so now as the opposition gains tanks you know the syrian regime is using their air power more. so this is going to escalate before -- and get worse before it gets better. >> eliot: you mention the arab league earlier. is there enough unity and enough certitude they want to get rid of assad so they can do anything and at least within the region make it clear that -- firm position against assad is appropriate and in fact desirable from the arab perspective? >> i think below the table

there is a lot of activity. in many respects, syria is a proxy war between iran on the one hand the gulf states, particularly saudi arabia on the other. so that there is a lot of weaponry and a lot of resources flowing into syria and part of the challenge to the united states is to try to help coordinate this stuff. try to figure out who's who. what they're doing what they need and in most particular, find out what happens the day after assad -- either steps down, is killed, is pushed aside. and the danger here is that even if assad is killed or pushed aside, this civil war as you called it rightly could continue for some time. but i'm not sure at a political level there's necessarily the same kind of unity of the arab league in the context of syria that he with saw a year ago in libya. >> eliot: the president signed the intelligence directive of course, we don't know exactly when he did that. do you think there can be and

should be any significant escalation of what we do for the rebels and the free rebels in terms of providing them material even if it is nonlethal material? >> well, i mean a lot of material in support can be useful. i think what's significant about the latest finding is that ostensibly, if i understand it correctly, there will be intelligence assets inserted into syria. that's important for a couple of reasons. one, we lost our embassy some time ago. it was closed because of the security situation. to an extent, we lost our eyes and ears that we were able to give a firsthand account of what's happening on the ground. so that restores the ability of the united states to really understand the dynamic inside the country and also to continue to shape the opposition. make it more effective. make it more unified and help planning for the day after so the syria can come together and work on behalf of the people of syria rather than as is currently happening with the regime against the interest of the syrian people.

>> eliot: it sounds like it will be chaos before order. p.j. crowley formerly of the clinton and obama administrations. now professor at george washington university. thank you for your insights tonight. >> thank you eliot. >> eliot: we'll look at mitt romney's economic plan. you'll recognize it. it didn't work last time either. >> this court has proven to be the knowing, delighted accomplice in the billionaires' purchase of our nation. >> and you think it doesn't affect you? think again.

with lysol kitchen soap hands are healthy. with lysol kitchen soap, washing dishes is easy. with lysol kitchen soap

surfaces are clean. hands. dishes. surfaces. the lysol no-touch kitchen system: the only all-in-one kitchen soap. try it for yourself. lysol. mission for health. [ male announcer ] peppermint that cools as you chew. stimulate your senses. 5 gum. now in micro pack. >> eliot: let's check in with jennifer granholm in "the war room." good evening governor. what have you got for us tonight? >> jennifer: eliot, mitt romney is looking battered a bruised. we'll go inside "the war room"

with rick tyler. we've also got larry from of course the university of virginia. he's going to be looking at something you've been looking at, what is going on with the tea party and how are we going to be able to take a look at what's going to happen in the senate. we're going to look at it from a slightly different perspective. all of that in "the war room" at the top of the hour plus a lot more. >> eliot: tea party is going to run the senate next year. that's my prediction. >> jennifer: it is not going to run the senate. let me pull my hair out right now. >> eliot: more "viewpoint" coming up next. the golden years as the conservatives call them, we had the highest tax rates, and the highest amount of growth, and the highest amount of jobs. those are facts. >>"if you ever raise taxes on the rich, you're going to destroy our economy." not true!

>> eliot: mitt romney's economic agenda is a disaster. and i'm not even going to talk about the distributional effects the equity and justice dimensions of this. on that score as discussed yesterday, the brookings institution, the tax policy center nonpartisan highly respected think tanks made clear the middle class will be socked with $86 billion in tax increases to subsidize the tax breaks being given to the wealthiest 5%. i'm talking today just about whether it will work. it won't. as explained by a senior adviser glen hubbard who is chairman of george w. bush's counsel of economic advisers brought us the 2008 cataclysm and also made evident in governor romney's own tax proposal their idea is old-fashioned trickle down

economics. cut tax rates on corporations and the wealthy because doing so they claim will increase wages and job creation. that is exactly what the romney campaign claimed yesterday in response to the brookings analysis and what hubbard and governor romney have been saying throughout this campaign. it is the old claim that if only we take care of the job creators, all will be well. but as we say let's go to the video or in this case, the charts. point one, corporate profits are already at an all-time high. as a percentage of gdp. higher than before the '08 cataclysm, higher than ever. point two wages are at an all-time low. as a percentage of gdp, having declined almost consistently since 2000 when the bush tax cuts were passed. and point three job creation, as we know, is also stagnant at best with unemployment stuck at 8.2% and the work force participation rate.

the percentage of working age americans who are holding a job or looking for one drifting down and now stuck at 63.8%. so the message is pretty clear. the types of tax policies governor romney is recommending have led to huge corporate profits and skewed income distribution but have not led to wage growth or job creation. as president obama said the other day, we've tried their approach. it has failed. this is no longer an ideological debate. it is a matter of simply reading the data we have from past experience. as they say, if you don't learn from history you're bound to repeat it. please let's avoid this rerun. it was rough enough the first time around. that's my view.

>> eliot: boycott versus turnout. the battleground chick-fil-a heeding the call from former

arkansas governor mike huckabee. thousands of thousands flocked to chick-fil-a restaurants to support the chicken chain in what huckabee called chick-fil-a appreciation day after the company's president dan cathy came underfire for saying he was guilty as charged for opposing gay marriage. chicken sandwich sales went through the roof according to megachurch pastor rick warren who apparently has a new role counting chickens and sandwiches who wrote in a tweet that cathy called him to say chick-fil-a has already set a world record today and that was with seven more hours to go in the west. while close mindedness may have been good for business at chick-fil-a yesterday tomorrow is slated to be same sex kissing day at chick-fil-a. you can be sure the restaurant chain is looking forward to that. supporters of same-sex marriage have a more important step forward to celebrate with the news that the democratic party plans to include a plank supporting marriage equality among other pro lgbt positions in its platform. joining me now to refuse the

legal issues of civil rights is richard socarides who served as an advisor on lgbt issues to president clinton and served as the president of equality matters. richard, thank you for joining us. you know, it is easy to make -- light of the whole chick-fil-a thing. >> it keeps on giving. >> eliot: i don't know where to stop with this. it is a real issue. your view? should people boycott chick-fil-a? >> i think they should and not because of what dan cathy said because everybody is entitle toed their opinion but because this company spends a lot of money, $3 million over the last several years funneling that money into right wing anti-gay groups that work against marriage equality but also more broadly, engage in things like conversion therapy. this company is a company that has no employment protections for their gay and lesbian employees. they have said previously they're going to fire people based upon their private

conduct. that perhaps adulters have no place working at chick-fil-a. it is a company with some strange corporate policies. it is best practices corporate best practice 101. all of the big companies now promote diversity and have protections for their employees. chick-fil-a is on the opposite end of the spectrum. >> eliot: i have said since this issue emerged consumers have every right to spend their dollars in support and with companies that reflect their values. it is that simple. i said the other night brawny paper towels is owned by the koch brothers. i'm buying bounty. chick-fil-a the target of a boycott. democratic issue will be in -- democratic convention will be in charlotte. a lot of chick-fil-as there. should there be a boycott of chick-fil-as by the democratic party? >> anybody who is disturbed by the positions they take and i think that's many americans should boycott and they had a

big day today because the right wing was all over this and they were saying go today and show your appreciation. but i think no company wants to be on either side of dramatically of the cultural wars. even if it is a 50/50 proposition. for basic fairness. but even if it is just a 50/50 proposition, no company wants to offend this much of the population. >> eliot: i think that's right. companies generally don't want to be in the middle. >> they're very quiet. the chick-fil-a people, there is a lot of political activity around this. huckabee and everything but they're not saying anything. they're just kind of saying -- thanks for your business. >> eliot: now let's get back to business. let's get to the democratic convention in charlotte. there will be, we're told on the platform, in the platform, a plank that says we believe in marriage equality. this is a monumental moment. >> it is a real milestone. especially when you remember that eight years ago the republicans placed these initiatives in several crucial swing states in

an effort to take the election to president george w. bush and those ballot -- those anti-gay initiatives may have given the election to george bush. now just eight years later it has turned so dramatically that the democrats are -- may by taking the other position, really help their chances. >> eliot: not only energizing, something the president needed to do, he did it with the issue of same-sex marriage but speaking to what you and i have been discussing is a much more rapid shift in the general public than anybody could have predicted. >> i give you a lot of credit because you were one of the very first democratic party leaders and i think maybe the first if not the first governor -- first governor of an important, big state to support marriage equality. that was less than -- that was eight years ago. ten years ago. >> eliot: that's not why we invited you to the show. thank you. i appreciate that. >> it is a big deal. now you were the first just within ten years. and now the whole party -- the

entire party has swung. >> eliot: will the republican party be there four years from now? >> i'm not sure it will happen in four years but i will tell you that in eight years and certainly in the not-too-distant future, this will not be an issue. the republicans are going to have to come around. >> eliot: we don't have a lot of time left. this was a tribute to the executive order the president did not sign. will he sign and should he sign it? he's done so much. it almost seems petty to say go back. that's a tangible, meaningful step forward. >> the unintended consequences in politics. i think he will eventually sign it and of course he should sign it. nondiscrimination order that applies to contractors which is necessary. >> eliot: it was easy to say his words were rhetoric but now the words have triggered a dynamic. >> he's been a great president for gay rights. >> eliot: will you do a quick web extra? >>