department, secret service, even the animal disease center at the agriculture department, 22 agencies in all became one big agency under the vaguely creepy brand name of homeland. now, are we any better at doing all of those government functions because they're all in one big agency? are we better off, say, with a fema that's part of homeland security instead of it being represented in the cabinet as a standalone thing? that's a good question and an important one. the national catastrophe that was the flunked response to hurricane katrina was 2 1/2 years into the new homeland security arrangement. on the flip side, of course, it should be noted ultimately it was the coast guard that came to new orleans' belated but frankly relatively competent aid and the coast guard, as part of the homeland security, too. the man at the center of this biggest transformation of the federal government in modern history, the biggest change in what we pay federal tax dollars for since we got a unified defense department in 1947, is

our next feguest. his name is tom ridge. he has a new book out called "the test of our times." it's a very human book. it reads as sort of one man's adventures in nationally consequential politics. the buzz about the book thus far has focused on one passage that's buried way down to start on page 236. just before the '04 election, another osama bin laden video was released. secretary ridge says he didn't believe that a threatening tape alone was ever justification for raising america's formal threat level. it's just not that simple. but at the end of october, october 29th, just before the election, he says, quote, a vigorous -- some might say dramatic -- discussion ensued. and then attorney general john ashcroft strongly urged an increase in the theft level and was supported by secretary-general donald rumsfeld. ridge said, quote, there was absolutely no support for that position within our department. none. i and wonder, is this about security or politics?

post-election analysis demonstrated a significant increase in the president's approval rating in the days after the raising of the threat level. now, although this hasn't been as widely quoted as that passage you just heard, secretary ridge than continues, and i think this is important, he says, quote, as the minutes passed at our video conference, we concluded that others in the administration were operating with the same threat information that we had at dhs, and they didn't know any more than we did. and we concluded that the idea was still a bad one. it also seemed possible to me and to others around the table that something could be afoot other than simple concern about the country's safety. joining us now is former pennsylvania governor, former homeland security secretary, a vietnam veteran awarded the bronze star for valor as an infantry staff sergeant, mr. tom ridge, who's also the author of "the test of our times: american under siege and how we can be safe again." mr. secretary, thanks for coming in. congratulations on the book. >> rachel, thank you so much for

the invitation and i had a hunch that you might begin our conversation with that passage. >> well, that's where all of the hullabaloo is. >> well, it is. >> i want to give you a chance to talk about it. because i think it's important to know that the splitization of security is not just this passage, it's an ongoing theme in the book. have you two chapters that are titled that way. >> right. >> and you argue that the perception that decisions on national safety would be made not for actual national safety rngz but for political reasons. you argue that that perception is pernicious, it impede what's we need to do to keep the country safe. why do you think it's so dangerous? >> well, that's not quite the argument that i put in here. >> okay. >> earlier in the book before this passage is referred to -- first of all, i thank you for raising it. it's a very important question. i wrote the book to shed some light on the challenges we faced setting up the department, the successes, the missteps and the way ahead. that passage has generated a lot of heat so i would like to generate a little light on it. >> okay. >> earlier in the book i remind

everybody that the system we designed to raise the threat level could not be manipulated, could not be orchestrated, directed or pressured by any single individual. regardless of what anybody says, the system was designed by the president to include the homeland security cabinet group sitting around from time to time when the intelligence warranted that group discussion, be it youtube video of it, you would see the secretary of defense, attorney general, secretary of state and others having a conversation as to whether the intelligence generates enough concern that we want to raise the threat level. that happened many, many times. this is a particularly dramatic moment because it is the weekend before the election. >> right. >> we don't see anything in the department that generates it, and certainly other people's agreed with us. but second rumsfeld and attorney general ashcroft very strong in their opinions, as everybody had expressed opinions on any other occasions that you never heard about because we never -- we never raised the threat level.

at the end of the day i am using in the book, is there more intelligence? that is new. that is not speculation about politics. because at no time -- at no time -- at no time did politics enter in my judgment anybody's equation. these are tough judgment calls. we made them on a series of occasions throughout two years. rarely did we make those decisions to go up. politics was not involved. the system was designed that people made judgments, the homeland security assistant to the president would make a recommendation. those are the only ways we could go up. as i say in the book, even the president couldn't raise it. >> so to be clear -- and i want to be clear on both. that's a have very clear, cogent explanation. and that makes sense internally. but i want to square it with you book. are you saying you were not pressured to raise the security alert on the eve of the '04 elections? >> i'm saying i was not pressured.

i'm saying in the book, since i am the secretary, and if we do decide to raise the threat level, the consequences to oversee the enhanced security right before the election belong to my -- my departments. and i say at the end of this discussion, a vigorous discussion were people rendering judgments on my mind based on what they think was in the best interest for the safety and security of the country, i am using in the book, is there something else here? what am i missing? i don't get it. is it politics? is it security? what's driving this discussion? but at the end of the day, what i say to you, rachel, is the process worked. politics wasn't involved. >> the reason that this keeps coming up, i'm just going to read to you directly from the fly leaf of your book. >> read my words. >> such as the pressure the dhs received to raise the security alert on the eve of the '04 presidential election. that's wrong. >> those aren't my words. >> okay. >> read the book. >> it says -- it comes with the book. it's the dust jacket. >> it's the dust jacket.

but my words in the book say very specifically, and even some of my friends who -- people -- i understand the concern about the passage, and i understand the concern about my response and my musing, but i'm here to tell you as i said earlier in the book, the system is designed so people who made critical judgments about the information in front of them and about the entire time i was secretary, i believe the system worked. we went up three, four times. you will never know the other times we had the same conversation when people said we ought to go up. we didn't go up. unless there was a consensus based on security, actionable intelligence, we never went up. >> the reason this matters so much to people, it's not just a -- it's not a gotcha thing. i am persuaded by the argument you made in the book, and you may not have intended it as you said earlier, it's a pernicious thing for the american people to receive, but america making security, they're not making decisions about security at all.

they're telling us it's about security and it's not. when you came out in 2005 and you said at a forum about the terror alert level, you said there were times when some people were very aggressive about raising it, and we said for that? >> yes. >> were there times -- were there time when's you felt people were wanting to raise it that were for reasons other than the country's safety? >> no. i'm trying to express a human reaction that i had leading a new department with a massive responsibility, creating relationships with other agencies, and, you know, i didn't go in as a counterterrorism expert but i had a great intelligence group and i learned a lot about terrorism along the way. and i do admit, there were some times when we took a look at the intelligence. some of my colleagues said, yeah, i think we better go up. but none of the colleagues had the responsibility of dealing with the consequences of taking our country to a higher level. so we were always very modest. we had a higher threshold to go up i think than anybody else. >> are you saying that people were saying it should go up? >> no. they were saying --

>> for political reasons? >> i don't doubt for a moment that any of my colleagues involved in those discussions felt the reason we should go up or not go up, add more security or reduce the security, is based on what they thought was in the best interest of the security of the country period. but i had a natural reaction, it's in the book. i said for what? i must tell you, a couple of times i would come back to the office and say, i don't get it. >> right. >> i don't think that's enough to go up. and part of that is yours truly saying to his leadership team who has responsibilities to oversee what's going to go on, there's not enough here to tell the governors and mayors and security professionals, you have to raise another level, you have to increase expenses, you have to call in personnel. in my judgment, it wasn't enough. by the way, every time we made the right decision, i believe. >> when you wrote, not on your leaf but in your book, you wrote, i wondered is this about security or politics, you're saying now that you wondered that and you shouldn't have? >> no. i used at the time, is there something else here? >> but there wasn't anything there. >> but there wasn't anything there.

>> it seem ed possible to you that something could be afoot? >> at the time i think some people might have thought there could be a political decision. but i don't recall it. people were arguing very vigorously about that. we went back out and said, is there intelligence out there that we're not aware of? is there something else here afoot? end of story. we did not raise the threat level. that was the right decision. >> when you were worried about it, though, at the time and you're describing now and you're being very specific, and i think it's really helpful, in terms of what you were worried about, versus what you believe now is really going on. wur worried at the time there were politics involved. you say now you can tell there weren't politics involved. but if you were worried at the time that there were politics involved, that the threat level was -- there was pressure on the threat level, pressure on decisions about national security that were mr. politics and not about the safety of the country, why didn't you warn us? why didn't you say something publicly? >> because there was no reason to warn you.

it was dramatic, it was the eve of the election -- i'm sorry, i deposit mean to interrupt you. go back and look at the internet. people were saying, i wonder if they will cancel the election or postpone the election? this is the same year six or seven months prior to there had been an incident before the spanish election that probably turned the election. so the fact that politics was on my mind when i'm using myself, is there something else going on here, did not seem irrational at the time to even write in the book. there were a lot of things at play. second guessing the reasons my colleagues went up was not one of them. >> right after you described those feelings, you said i made a decision. i knew then i had to leave the administration. were those concerns at the time, whether or not they were founded, part of the reason that you left? >> that may not have been as artful as it should have been. it was a national time for transition. frankly, when the president asked me to stay on to go from assistant to secretary of the homeland security, it was fairly well known i would probably leave at the end of the first term. >> that was not part of the decision, did not factor into the decision? >> it did not. >> would you mind sticking with us through, we have to take a

commercial break. and there are a number of other things specifically about decisions you made at dhs, momentous decision that's were still -- have still really shaped our homeland security capability today that i would love to ask you about if i haven't offended you too much already? >> no, it's been a wonderful discussion. i appreciate you letting me shed some light. >> you will stick with us for a second? >> you bet. >> governor tom ridge of pennsylvania, former secretary of homeland security. his new book is called "the test of our times." we will be right back. ( conversation ) garth, you're up. hold on, i'm at capitalone.com picking a photo...

for my credit card. here's one from my prom. oh, what memories. how 'bout one from our golf outing? ( shouting ) i know, maybe one of my first-born son. dad, mom says the boys gotta go. personalize your card by uploading... your own photo at capitalone.com. what's in your wallet? ♪ my special guest tonight, tom ridge. the first director of the department of homeland security. we'll have more with him in just a moment. they taste fresh. wait. what are you doing? got it. you're secretly taping me? cook it fresh, strain it fresh, mix it fresh, healthy choice fresh mixers, look for it in the soup or pasta aisle. back playing in the afternoon. excedrin back and body has two ingredients to block and relieve the pain. doesn't your whole body deserve excedrin strength relief?

excedrin. what ache?

's progressive. call or click today.

. our guest is former pennsylvania governor tom ridge. he has just written a new book called "the test of our times" about being the nation's first secretary of homeland security. governor, thanks again for staying with us. >> thanks for asking me to stay. >> i'd like to ask you, because today is an anniversary of sorts. i would like to ask you to watch about 60 seconds of footage that is from four years ago, from -- from september 1st, 2005, obviously, the after math of hurricane katrina, okay? all right. >> this is not easy! this is not about low income. it's not about rich people or poor people. it's about people. >> we're suffering here with no water. i fought my country for years. look at the predicament i'm in. i can't even go back to my own house in new orleans.

i don't have nowhere to go. >> worse than animals. in baghdad, they airdrop water, food, to people. why can't they do that to their own people in new orleans? >> people have been in here since monday. today is thursday. they have been telling us buses are coming. buses are coming. don't go to the superdome. come to the convention center. we're at the convention center. nobody's here. >> it's not right. it's just not right. >> now, governor, in your book, you describe the government response, no-holds-barred here, you describe it as pathetic, incompetent. that footage was four years ago today. you left the homeland security department several months to the day, actually, before -- before that happened. i have to ask you, did everything just go to hell at dhs in the seven months after you left that agency, or do you think that you bear some responsibility for homeland security just failing the country so catastrophically after katrina? >> well, i guess if you want to

send some responsibility my way, i would have to accept it. i don't think -- i think my team left in place some procedures and protocols that there were ultimately used, but had they been used before i think would have minimized the heartburn -- the heartbreak associated with the totally incompetent response of federal government at all levels. i think the federal government actually shares some of the blame. but the federal government didn't put everybody in that superdome. the federal government didn't keep the buses in the parking lot and not evacuate people. the federal government didn't fail to call up the national guard. so there's enough culpability there. but i think as i say in the book, there were certain things that we developed that we left on the shelf. and had some of those things been used in preparation for the disaster, because that's what pima does to a certain extent, and that's what the department was to do rather than after the disaster, the tragedy and heartbreak would not have been eliminated, but it would have been reduced. >> one of the things you really

focus on in the book is the proposal not just in terms of national preparedness planning but also specifically that there ought to be regional response centers. you wanted there to be one in new orleans. >> correct. >> that doesn't seem to be the lesson learned by the rest of the people in the federal government. that hasn't happened since. why do you think that hasn't happened since? you made a case that would have made a huge difference. >> i think it would have made a huge difference. i think the notion that as a former governor, you shouldn't be surprised that i think you can't secure the country inside the beltway. you can't prepare -- you can't maximize your ability to prepare for a terrorist attack, respond to a national disaster, respond to all of the attacks signed the beltway. our theory was in time let's have eight regional centers. let's resolve our capabilities to do all of these things over one period of time and one of those things would be new orleans. would you have had a primary official there associated with the federal government and dhs because that individual would have the relationship with the mayors and the governors and oversee the preparedness. and i'm hopeful that the book may generate some interest,

whether it's our version of regions or other versions of regions, you have to take some of the insight of levels of washington and put it into place. >> why didn't dhs get blamed broadly speaking for what happened over the failures of katrina? fema got brain and michael brown became a household word, his name because a household name. but the department of homeland security, yourself having left seven months before and michael chertoff having been there, even as a person, chertoff specifically being blamed in some of the congressional after action reviews as to what went wrong didn't end up becoming part of the legacy as the agency as a wheel. it all came down on fema. why do you think that? >> i think the primary responsibility to respond to this event was fema. but as you pointed out and i appreciate you championing the coast guard. it's probably one of the most underappreciated, underresourced multitask organizations in the federal government. they did come to the rescue. again, there was another blame to go around. we will never be able to go

to -- kind of undermind the confidence of the people generally in the federal government. think frankly in the state and local government, there's culp ability there. but i think the most important thing in the aftermath of such a tragedy is there were lesson learned. fema did make significant changes afterwards and i believe if it ever happened again -- this is almost biblical in proportion. we did have a plan on the shelf that said if there's something that overwhelmed the capability of fema and the state and local governments to deal with it, you can go to this plan. well, they went to it after the incident happened rather than implementing it before. >> that shelf was not that superdome. that is -- this is one of the great american tragedies of the life of our country. >> no question about it. >> we have to take one more quick commercial break. when we come back, if you don't mind, i would like to ask you about something that you write about -- i think in a pretty moving way in the book, about things that you said about iraq, linking the issue of iraq to

homeland security. you say some criticism that you took for that was deserved, and you also made reflections on that. i would love to be able to talk to you about that if you have just a moment. >> if you don't mind. i don't. >> governor tom ridge is our guest. he's the former governor of pennsylvania. he's the former secretary of homeland security. his new book is called "the test of our times," and he's now sort of unofficially my hostage because i won't let him leave the studio. if you will forgive us both, we will be right back. re/max agents have the experience to get the job done. nobody sells more real estate than re/max. where do you want to be?

that's why i use covergirl's simply ageless makeup with olay regenerist serum. a department store brand can glob up in lines and actually make you look older. simply ageless makes you look amazing. from olay and easy, breezy, beautiful covergirl.

our guest is former

pennsylvania governor tom ridge, who has just written a new book called "the test of our times." it's about being the nation's first secretary of homeland security. it is a very good read, and you are being a real sport by sticking around with us, governor. thanks. >> you're welcome. >> one episode you write about in the book is about you saying in august 2006 that the president's leadership was causing us to better target our defense's measures here an way from home. and the implication was going to war in iraq was a defensive measure like homeland security stuff that we do here at home. you regret having said that, which the president asked you to say? >> well, i do agree with it. i agree with the president's engagement with pakistan and getting the enemy intelligence service to get the information and let us make that decision. but, again, referring to our earlier conversation, we had a conversation among the president's homeland security group. we decided that the hard drive and the surveillance tapes on northern new jersey, new york city and washington merited us

going up. so i'm going to hold a press conference. that's my job. i'm going to tell america what we're going to do. we're going to surgically apply the threat. we're going to raise the threat. that means more preparedness, more security. at the last minute, at the request of in folks at the white house, who don't need to be named, said why don't you praise the president? i never praised the president before. i have a bunch of people waiting. i threw the president's name in. it became the sideshow. it marginalized the process. you talk about politics, when i used the president's name, and he was -- it was because of the toughness towards pakistan, the intelligence service, blah, blah, blah. but got that hard drive, i should not have mentioned it because it deattracttracattraca real message, that is the intelligence is real. the president's homeland security council thinks we need to add security around these venues. so it marginalized my press statement, and marginalized the intelligence. and nobody is responsible for

that but me. >> but when you said targeting our defensive measure as way from homes, august '04, so we are more than a year into the war in iraq with the implication there is that you were talking about iraq. >> well, the fact is there was a war -- we were talking about the general war against these terrorists and our presence in afghanistan, iraq and the pressure we had to put on the pakistani intelligence service to be -- to cooperate more completely and comprehensively with us resulted on us getting the intel. we acted on the intel and went up. i should have never mentioned the president's name. we created a perception be, we talked about this earlier, that politics were involved. and politics were not involved in that decision. >> that point i understand. but when i look at your record, i feel like, you know, you didn't slip in a reference to the president and a reference to iraq once in this mention in 2004. you were a crucial authoritative part of making what turned out to be a false case to the american people about iraq being

a threat, and that's needing to attack them. february 2003 you said on abc, "i agree that the president has said the world community has said this is a rogue regime that has chemical biological weapons trying to develop nuclear weapons, has means of delivery. that's the reason this individual needs to be disarmed. the point in fact is, is that the world community has known for 12 years he has chemical biological weapons, means of delivery, and that's precisely the reason of the united states and its partners are trying to disarm saddam hussein. he's a threat to his region, he's a threat to our allies. he is a threat to us." you made that allegation on national tv a month before we invaded. do you regret that? >> no. >> do you think it's true? >> at the time i thought it was true and the things we have done be and leader shep have done to keep america safe. >> do you think saddam hussein was a threat to us at the time we invadeed? >> based on not only the intelligence we had but the intelligence that was shared, i believe, it's been known by the

brits and the french, they had used weapons of mass destruction, that he was, again, several intelligence agencies thought he still had them. and i believed -- i believed if he had a weapon of mass destruction, a radiological, a crude radiological device, nuclear device or something, for him if he had them, did i believe he would give them to al qaeda if he had them? the answer was yes. >> that's what you -- >> so i believed it at the time. >> you believed it at the time. >> yes. >> you don't still believe it, do you? >> no, it's pretty clear that the intelligence communities of several countries who had assessed his -- who claimed that he had weapons of mass destruction, we haven't found them. >> you think they might still be there and we just haven't found them? >> i doubt it. i think we covered that country. but there were other reasons to go in. that was the one everyone focused on and everyone was critical for the president going into iraq and said we never found them. but i think the president made

the decisions based on the facts and the intelligence as he knew it at the time and i think it was the right decision at the time. >> you don't think that the administration, vice president cheney, your longtime friend, president bush, the -- the intelligence system set up under donald rumsfeld's pentagon, you don't think they had any role in skewing the intelligence to a foregone conclusion? you think it was an intelligence community error and not a political assassination, really? >> yes. i know some of these men better than i know others but i don't think any one of these men would have contrived in their own mind a scenario without in their own mind and heart substantive belief based on information that they received that the threat was real. there's no way that anybody in that group -- i just -- they would commit our blood and our treasure to a cause if they didn't think it was a necessary to commit our blood and treasure to a cause to keep america safe.

the intelligence may have proven to be false but there was no doubt in my mind they were motivated to keep america safe. in retrospect, we can see the intelligence was faulty. actually, we discover aid couple of times when we raised the threat level, there was one instance a couple years later, that turned out to be faulty. but sometimes you don't have the luxtry of waiting. in some instance, when you thought they had weapons of mass destruction, the united nations had sanctioned them so many times and nothing ever happened and somebody had to make a move. i find it rather difficult to think that anybody in this country would believe that people in charge of their government, republicans or democrats, liberals or conservatives, would commit our blood and our treasure to a cause if they didn't rulely believe in their heart and their mind that it wasn't to protect america. >> i think that is an el consequent argument. i have to tell you. i think you making that argument right now is why republicans after the bush and cheney administration, are not going to get back the country's trust on

national security. the look back at that decision and say, we got it wrong but it was in good faith and not acknowledge the foregone conclusion that we are going to invade iraq that prevaded every decision that was made about intelligence. looking back at that decision-making process, it sounds like you're making the argument you would have made the same decision again. americans need to believe in our government would not make that wrong a decision that would not make such a foregone conclusion -- take such a foregone conclusion to such an important issue that the intelligence that proved the opposite point was all discounted, that the intelligence was combed through for any bit that would support the foregone conclusion of the policymakers. the system was broken. and if you don't see that the system was broken and you think it was just that the intel was wrong, i think that you're one of the most trusted voices on national security for the republican party, and i think that's the elephant in the room. i don't think you guys get back your credibility on national security until you realize that

was a wrong decision made by policymakers. it wasn't the spy's fault. >> i think your suggestion that it was driven by, quite obviously, the people who made the decision knew more about the threat than you and i do. and, again, i think it's a pretty radical conclusion to suggest men and women trust the safety of this country would predicate the safety on any other bases than to keep america safe. later on it may have been proven that some of the information was inaccurate. but there were plenty of other reasons to go into iraq at the time, the foremost weapons of mass destruction. that proved to be faulty. but the matter of fact is at that time, what they knew, and they nigh more than you and i do, it was the right thing to do and the decision was made in what they considered to be the best interest in our country. we have been litigating it now five or six years. i against we're going to continue to litigate it. historians -- the final history hasn't been written because it's iraq. it's some form of self-governance, some form of

democracy ultimately is achieved in iraq, and it's not going to look exactly like ours, but the muslim world does admire freedom of speech. the muslim world does admire democracy, as difficult as it is over there, the notion that we went in improperly will be obviously reversed and the history has yet to be written. >> reversed? >> well, democracy in iraq will be written not just for the men and women and families in iraq but for the entire region for a lot of reasons. >> if you can go back in time and sell the american people on the idea that 4,000 americans ought to lose their lives and we ought to lose trillions of dollars for democracy in iraq, you have a wilder imagination than i do. we were sold that war because of 9/11. we were sold that war because of the threat of weapons of mass destruction from this guy who didn't have them and our government should have known it. and, frankly, a lot of people believe our government did know it and it was a cynical decision. and maybe everybody wasn't in it on it, and maybe that is a radical thing to conclude -- >> i don't share that point of view. you do. i'm not going to convince you and you're not going to convince

me. but i appreciate the civil way we had this discussion. frankly, i think we would advance the conditions of our country a lot faster and a lot further if we could have discussions like this. >> governor ridge, thank you for writing the book. thank you for fighting my interpretation of the book with such a pawn. >> thank you very much. >> thank you for coming in. >> the book is called "the test of our times: america undersiege and how we can be safe again." it is out right now. we will be right back.

grill: holy moly!!! what just hap...whoa! grill: i mean...wow! hey! that looks great. grill: and there's no need to discuss it further. in fact, you can buff most of that out. just give it a once-over with a wet paper towel...hee, hee grill: ok, good talking to you... anncr: accidents are bad. anncr: but geico's good. ding! with 24-hour claims service. new carefree ultra protection liners, with wings! absorb ten times more, like a pad

but feel thin and comfy, like a liner. new carefree® ultra protection™ and then there's the twin-turbocharging, 365-horsepower-generating, ecoboost™ engine in the all-new ford taurus sho that has the thirst of a v6 with the thrust of a v8. we speak car. we speak innovation. introducing the all-new taurus sho from ford. drive one.

having played the fear for your life card on older people, on veteran, and even on people registered to vote as republicans, the forces against health care reform are now targeting women with breast cancer. seriously, that's coming up. first, a few holy mackerel stories in today's news. we start in pennsylvania, where heather sherba is a 22-year-old from the pittsburgh area who was among the 12 victims of that horrible august 4th mass shooting at an la fitness club in collier township, pennsylvania. three innocent people were killed in that attack before the gunman killed himself. heather sherba was shot in the leg. she's one of the nine people who survived their wounds from that

shooting. onto the emotional and physical trauma of having experienced that completely random, senseless act of violence, miss sherba has had to deal with her injuries without the benefit of health insurance. at age 22, she is aged out of being covered as a child under her parents' plan and having just graduated from college, she doesn't yet have a job who could provide her with health insurance. and since health insurance is so expensive to buy individually out in the open market, miss sherba, live 47 million other americans, is going without. now she's been injured in that shooting. how exactly does a person in her position manage? well, in heather's case, wpxi in pennsylvania reports that the solution is a car wash. normally, the preferred fund-raiser for school trips and marching band uniforms, a car wash to help finance miss sherba's medical bills from her stay at allegheny general hospital was organized by her friends and family earlier this month. >> heather is a recent college graduate who has no job or

health insurance. >> it just feels good inside knowing that you're helping somebody, you know, she doesn't have insurance, the poor thing. so, we just thought we should do this. >> i'm just absolutely grateful that everybody that is supportive of me and has come out and is willing to lend a helping hand in raise money for me. >> the car wash raised about $500 to help heather bay her bills. good on her friends and family for helping out. good luck to her as she continues to recover from her very, very, very scary summer. and god forgive the richest nation on earth for making this the excuse we have for a health care system. meanwhile in washington, d.c., the effort to stop health reform continues. and for republican senator judd gregg of new hampshire, congress's rules of engagement have conveniently just changed, just in the nick of time. back in 2005, republicans were the majority party in the u.s. senate. democrats in the minority, did sometimes use the filibuster to stop republicans from passing what they wanted with a simple

majority. now, the democrats didn't use the filibuster nearly as much as the republicans do now, but they did sometimes use it. in a debate that year over drilling the caribou in the arctic national wildlife refuge in alaska, senator judd gregg decided he was done with filibuster. he would have none of it. republicans wouldn't be able to get 60 votes to overcome that filibuster so judd gregg went to the floor of the senate to say that drilling in anwar should be considered under budget reconciliation rules, these rules that would require just a simple majority of 51 votes. >> the course is this, if you've got 51 votes for your position, you win. is there something wrong with majority rules? i don't think so. >> something wrong? these are very heddie days for senator gregg. then 2006 happened, and then

2008 happened, and now the republicans are a very, very, very, very tiny minority in the u.s. senate. they are the ones who are filibustering now more than ever. and faced with the real possibility that senate democrats could use those same judd gregg-approved budget reconciliation rules to pass health reform with just 51 votes, senator gregg now wants you to know that he's appalled by that prospect, appalled, i tell you. according to "the hill" newspaper, mr. gregg says that republicans will wage a vashs fight if democrats use reconciliation rules to pass a health care bill. senator gregg threatened hundreds of objections to the bill to stall it and added, quote, we are very much engaged in taking a hard look at our rights under reconciliation. it would be very contentious. it would be very contentious if they did it. but when we did it, simple. not contentious. majority rule. senator judd gregg, keeping to the one true political rule that always holds now among

congressional republicans. it is -- like it says back there, i, okwardi -- it's okay when a republican does it. always very consistent. finally, health reform has its own fictional bad-ass advocate at last. with chuck norris on the birther bandwagon and hulk hogan on anti-property taxes crusade, it has fallen to legendary made of special agent jack bauer to make a progressive case to health reform that has nothing to do with torture. >> in the united states, where i am currently living, i see the devastating effects of not having a national health care system. 15% of all americans, 43 million people, have no health coverage of any kind. if my grandpa were here tonight, he would tell you that our canadian health care system needs to improve, not be cut back. and he would tell you that it was damn well worth fighting for. >> jack bauer, it turns out, lives by day as an actor named

kiefer suther lands. he's canadian by birth and his grand father, tommy douglas, was a legendary politician from saskatchewan. tommy douglas introduced universal health care in canada. and for his troubles, he was voted the greatest canadian of all time in a nationally televised contest a few years ago. now is the part where i please ask kiefer sutherland to please come on this tv show. please, please. because you're tasty... with toasty whole grains. (crunch) wheat thins. toasted. whole grain. crunch. have at it. a heart attack at 53. i had felt fine. but turns out... my cholesterol and other risk factors...

increased my chance of a heart attack. i should've done something. now, i trust my heart to lipitor. when diet and exercise are not enough, adding lipitor may help. unlike some other cholesterol lowering medications, lipitor is fda approved to reduce the risk... of heart attack, stroke, and certain kinds of heart surgeries... in patients with several common risk factors... or heart disease. lipitor has been extensively studied... with over 16 years of research. lipitor is not for everyone, including people with liver problems... and women who are nursing, pregnant, or may become pregnant. you need simple blood tests to check for liver problems. tell your doctor if you are taking other medications, or if you have any muscle pain or weakness. this may be a sign of a rare but serious side effect. i was caught off-guard. but maybe you can learn from my story. have a heart to heart with your doctor... about your risk. and about lipitor. are working from the road using a mifi-- a mobile hotspot that provides up to five shared wi-fi connections.

two are downloading the final final revised final presentation. - one just got an email. - woman: what?! hmph. it's being revised again. the copilot is on mapquest. and tom is streaming meeting psych-up music - from meltedmetal.com. - ( heavy metal music playing ) that's happening now with the new mifi from sprint-- the mobile hotspot that fits in your pocket. sprint. the now network. deaf, hard-of-hearing, and people with speech disabilities access www.sprintrelay.com.

introducing anytime gourmet culinary kits for two. it has everything you need. just prep, cook and share your way into a gourmet meal. wild salmon dijon in puff pastry with whole-wheat orzo and vegetables. new stouffer's anytime gourmet. make it amazing.

first back in july, there was the conspiracy theory that health reform was a secret plot to kill old people. then starting last month, the new conspiracy theory that health reform was a secret plot to deny health care to veterans. then just last week we learned from the republican national committee of a brand-new one, that health care reform was a secret plot to dole out health carom to democrats. it's a secret plot to kill off people registered to vote by republicans by preventing republicans from getting any health care. that one was so bad, the republicans even had to apologize for it. but now it's another i can't believe it scare tactic. the new target, not old people or veterans or republicans.

this time, it's women with breast cancer. no, i am not kidding. >> if you find a lump, you could wait months for treatment and potentially life-saving drugs could be restricted. government control of health care here could have meant that 300,000 american women with breast cancer might have died. my odds of surviving cancer was high because my care was the best. what are your odds if the government takes over your health care? a. >> go to independent women's forum to share your story. >> health reform, it's a secret plot to kill hundreds of thousands of american women with breast cancer. that ad is being broadcast in a multimillion dollar ad in eight states done by a conservative group called the independent women's forum. we called them for comment today. we're still waiting for their response. and as reported by michelle goldberg, they have also sent out a fundraising e-mail covering the same scare tactics territory. the e-mail has the subtle suggest line, quote, more

american women are going to die. after that, the letter begins, quote, more american women are going to die of breast cancer if you and i surrender to president obama's nationalized health care onslaught. real people might not make it if president obama inflicts his nationalized health care on america. so be afraid, women with breast cancer. health reform is a secret plot to kill you. pay no attention to the fact that every major breast cancer advocacy group in the country supports the health care reform. the independent women's forum wants you to be afraid. and also send them a check. let me start by getting your reaction to this ad, specifically targeting women with breast cancer, what do you think? >> i saw the video. i went online and looked at it. it made me mad. i don't like being manipulated to and lied to. women are bearing the brunt of

the broken health care system. and we know what we need and we certainly don't need scare tactics claiming that women with breast cancer are suddenly going to die if we have health care reform. it's outrageous. >> we have seen a lot of different groups being targeted by anti-health reform forces. senior citizens, veterans. we haven't heard a lot about women being targeted with these be afraid tactics. do you think women are specifically being targeted, just more under the radar than this obvious new front? >> well, i think this is new, targeting women in this particular way, but i will say that it is not new for extremists in the republican party to use women's need for reproductive health services as a political football. and breast cancer is part of the spectrum of reproductive health care services that women are impacted by, right? but before they came out with these kinds of deceptive ads, the republicans in congress were trying to pass amendments that would stop women from having access to a range of reproductive health care

services, should health care reform actually pass. i knew that as a means of trying to derail health care reform altogether, but by using women's bodies as a political football in that effort. >> well, your organization, the national organization for women obviously has a singular focus on women's issues in terms of health care policy being debated right now. what is your position on what sort of reform would be most beneficial for women? >> what women really need is a single-payer health care system. you know, women have higher health care costs, largely because of reproductive health care needs, prenatal care and childbirth care is the biggest driver of the increased costs. right now, women have less access to health insurance than men do because we work part time in part-time jobs not paying benefits. or women are also disproportionately represented among minimum wage jobs and nonunion jobs without health care. as long as we have a health care

system that depends on employers to provide health insurance, women are not going to have enough insurance. so even when we have insurance, we pay too much for it and very often things like pregnancy is considered a pre-existing condition, so if you're pregnant when you get that job with health care, you don't have your prenatal care covered. and guess what? women who don't get pri natal care who are pregnant have three times -- are two to three times more likely to suffer maternal morbidity or mortality. infants have a six times higher likelihood of mortality if their mom doesn't have prenatal care. so it's incredibly important. and where are the right wingers who are scaring us with these breast cancer claims, where are they, if they care so much about women with breast cancer, let's have them call for full coverage for women. so that we can be protected against that kind of thing. >> terry o'neill, president of the national organization for women. you let me know if any of those people get in touch with you with an offer to do that, okay?

>> i will. >> thank you. okay, the christian right, acting rather unchristian when it comes to health care reform. keith olbermann will tackle that subject on "countdown" next with the columnist dan savage. you will not want to miss this conversation. back in just a moment. you know what's complicated? shipping. shipping's complicated. not really. with priority mail flat rate boxes from the postal service shipping is easy. if it fits, it ships anywhere in the country for a low flat rate. that's not complicated. come on. how about...a handshake. alright. priority mail flat rate boxes only from the postal service. a simpler way to ship.

still haven't tried activia? i am definitely a skeptic. my commercials didn't convince you? actually, my mom convinced me. and? activia definitely helped with my occasional irregularity. take the activia challenge. it works or your money back! ♪ activia! the rest of the body is a no brainer. doesn't your whole body deserve excedrin strength relief? excedrin back & body. excedrin. what ache? what's in it for me? i'm not looking for a bailout, just a good paying job. that's why i like this clean energy idea. now that works for our whole family. for the kids, a better environment. for my wife,

who commutes, no more gettin' jerked around on gas prices... and for me, well, it wouldn't be so bad if this breadwinner brought home a little more bread. repower america. i hope our senators are listening. he's a hall of fame quarterback who scored a 22-pound weight loss thanks to nutrisystem. he's a legendary linebacker who's tackled his own weight problem by dropping 35 pounds with nutrisystem. so, who's the winner... at losing weight? listen here, twinkle toes, you're going to need some new dance moves, buddy, if you're going to take on dan marino. dan marino? what did he play, kickball? i'm feeling lean, i'm mean, and i still look good. order now and you can get an extra three weeks of meals free. 22 pounds. 35 pounds. show-off. loser. nutrisystem is so easy, anybody can lose weight. i'm curt menefee, and i lost 56 pounds on nutrisystem.

so, who's the winner now? order now and you can get an extra three weeks of awesome meals. that's 105 meals free. call or click now. my conversation with former homeland security tom ridge. i hope you'll join us for that. now it's "countdown" with keith ole berman. which of these stories will you be talking about tomorrow?

the new gop demands, pressed by invitation-only town halls, too cowardly to face criticism. pressed by the phony bible thumpers like michelle bachmann. we have to make a covenant to slit our wrists on this thing. the plain crazy who would actually boo a dead senator two days after his funeral. >> ted kennedy, this was the great issue of his life. >> the republican do-over, dan savage on the gop and religious ecstacy crowd. who's using who? out of afghanistan, the call from that wild-eyed liberal george will? dick in 2012, serious ruminations on a cheney presidentialed by, and our not so serious cheney campaign ad.