operation. this particular part of it occurred about some time last month. some time in april. but it's not over as far as the operation itself which is why you're seeing very few details being given out. >> obviously the questions to your judgment on what use can say or will say. is it known who made this bomb? bomb makers tend to have a certain signature. there are some bomb makers in yemen who are well known. is it known who made this? >> there are two things i can say. one is that the person who had the bomb, we no longer have to be concerned about him. number one. and number two, you saw there was an attack on a leader in yemen over the weekend. and that is related to this whole operation. but other than i really can't go. >> there's a type of explosive pten which was what was used in the attempted underwear bombing of that plane in detroit. is it similar to petn? >> it's nonmetallic and the fbi bomb experts are analyzing it right now. again, this was something very much cause for concern. and it's probably -- it's one of the most tightly held operations i've seen. i can tell you of myself and no other member of congress knew anything about this. including me. until this afternoon. and that's unusual. it also appears somehow this was leaked. because i don't know what your sources are telling you, but if you go around this afternoon, few people knew anything about it. even those in prominent positions. and it seems the administration was playing at getting everything out. and i spoke to other congressional leaders and people in position and they knew nothing about it until this afternoon either. something with the timing here raises questions. >> what do you mean? raises what questions, do you think? >> why did it come out this afternoon? and such a tightly held operation. if it was leaked, how was it leaked and why was it leaked. i've been involved in a number of these and i've seen and observed a number of these tightly held operations before. i never saw one that was so closely held and didn't seem to come out all at once. and the administration this afternoon and top people in the various intelligence agencies were really not in any kind of a position to talk about it. they seemed to be taken by surprise. also talking to some other key democrats and republicans in congress, they felt they were caught totally off guard today. and that's unusual. even with the bin laden killing, they were members who were briefed before it happened. >> do you think there's some political reason for if it was in fact leaked out and if it was leaked by the administration there's a political reason? >> i don't want to get into if the administration did it or whatever. there could have been somebody with knowledge of what happened. i'm not trying to bring politics into anything. whether somebody in the intelligence community or whatever, it's important if it was a leak we find out who did it. there's such sensitive information here. if something like that is leaked out in an unplanned way and that seems to be what happened here, it could be wrong. but from the key people i've spoken to this afternoon, they seem to have that impression too. >> are you pleased with the intelligence you've heard so far in terms of how this person -- how this device was apparently apprehended? i mean, does it tell you that there's a good safety net out there? >> yeah. and there's two things. one is outstanding work. our intelligence agencies that we set up after 9/11, from all i see this operated at 1,000%. everyone involved deserves tremendous credit. this was a key victory for us. it also reminds us this war's not going to end in afghanistan. this is al qaeda as morph and they are constantly attempting to find new ways at get at us. they have skilled scientists and other people with advanced degrees who are working on a regular basis to try to get ahead of us. every time we think we have them they come up with something new. and if this had been a success -- i was talking to someone involved in it. said if this happened prior to 9/11, there's no doubt at all this would have been a success. we would have had hundreds of americans killed. >> i don't want to say anything inappropriate, but this is a nonmetallic device as you said, our -- i mean, metal detecters at airports from my understanding cannot detect those, correct? >> i don't want to get into that instead of saying tsa would be putting in various components to try to stop it. again, that's what the bomb experts are looking at. >> congressman peter king, thank you very joining us. joining -- fran, what's the latest you're hearing from our sources? >> you're asking about the bomb maker. what was said to me by a source in washington who's got first hand knowledge is look, this had marked similarities to the underwear bombs, the cart rridg bomb. there are marked similarities and differences. it shows their ability to adapt to our -- >> they're a learning enemy. >> that's right. you can't count them out. even though they haven't been successful. they're clearly determined and adaptive. >> when you hear congressman king saying he'd been told the person who was going to deliver this device or had this device is no longer a threat, to me that says they're dead or captured. >> correct. and the same thing was said to me. there's only two possibilities. >> right. >> bob, you said this is about as high-tech as would-be terrorists get. does their sophistication worry you? >> a lot. normally they use chemical initiators. and it sort of builds. what you're doing is bypassing any sort of metal that can be done in a plastic container or glass container. then it will go to a high explosive which can cut a hole in the skin of an airplane. as you said, it's -- sometimes it's petn. there is no metal in it, it makes it very difficult for tsa to catch one of these things. because they have to run them through a chemical analysis like a neutron detector. this is why there's been such a tight hold on this. poem don't want to talk about the technology. and the fact that they're improving their technology. and i think these guys are very, very good. i've seen these airplane bombs in the '80s. they bypassed airport security then. if they continue to adapt, we should consider this is real threat to our aviation. >> nick roberts looked into petn which is the name being used in this even though it may be different than petn. petn was used by the so-called underwear bomber. i want to show you what nick discovered about what petn is capable of. take a look at this. >> here we go. >> reporter: explosive expert sydney olford showed me the power of a tiny amount of petn. >> this really is a messy powder. >> reporter: then he agreed to replicate a series of printer bombs revealing how they evaded detection. >> that's petn. if it went off now i would be instantly killed. bits of me would go around the room. >> reporter: out in a field, olford places the bomb on an aluminum sheet simulating the skin of an aircraft. >> three, two, one. that is where the table was standing and you can see the blast effect. if that had been part of an airplane's fuselage, heaven help the airplane. it would have been a terminal event, i'm afraid. >> nick, how does somebody -- i mean -- i don't want to say anything appropriate, but is it easy for people to get petn or make petn? >> one of the things al qaeda in yemen has been boasting about in the glossy magazines and how to do magazines, they printed a couple of those inspired magazines last week. they were boasting there about the fact they've taken control of territory inside yemen and taking control of laboratories there they've upgraded which has given them access to the chemicals and the space. because they've taken territory there. so they have the laboratories and the space and the technical know how to do it. they have everything they need to build these devices. the problem is getting these devices out of yemen because a counterterrorism effort is focusing on containing them in yemen. then exporting them to where they can go on board aircraft flying to the united states. so they have a lot of the necessary components and know how at their disposal where they can work on these devices. >> tommy, what are the questions u.s. intelligence wants to try to understand now about this device, about the people behind it? >> i think the main thing is who made it. is it an assiri device? how is it going to be detonated if you're using plastic syringes. it's probably not going to be detected before you get on the aircraft. is this similar to the plot using 80 grams of petn in the printer being shipped to chicago that was discovered in london? and in that case, that particular printer had gone through all types of screening, machines, and other devices. the saudi arabian service went to look at that particular package. the british authorities used dogs and the dogs sniffed that package and couldn't detect 80 grams of petn mere inches from their noses. materials like that are very hard to detect. and depending how they're packaged and carried poses the threat to everybody. >> it's scary listening to you. i don't like to -- there's not much that makes me scared. i don't like to promote things that make other people scared. but the idea that those bombs in the printers went through so many multiple screenings and -- i mean, dogs and devices -- and yet were still able to get through, is there technology in the pipeline that can detect this stuff? >> well, i'm not sure about the technology. many people make so many claims. you talk to the company owners of companies using these dogs and they brag about the high percentage that they can detect. then the reality is they miss it. that particular package in london that was going to be shipped to a jewish center in chicago, illinois, would have made it if it wasn't for the specific information. it had gone through two or three screenings to get to london. it was one airplane away to being shipped to the united states. other than the intelligence that interrupted that plot, the technology did not intercede to make us safer in that case. and we don't know what was -- all the details about this device to know if it's better. >> bob, is this is matter of time before something like this gets through? >> i'm afraid so. this could all die down of its own accord. but with the technology and the palestinians in yemen helping them improve it, i think the risk goes up. this is the second one that's been carried on by a passenger. meant to be carried on by a passenger. i think one day it will get through. >> fran, do you agree with it? >> i do. the one thing we should say to give some people some sense of comfort. your hands get swabbed. that's meant to detect explosive traces. and it's the sort of thing that you hope would pick up if someone had been handling this sort of device. remember, this was not meant to be a body cavity device. this is an external device. you hope things like that. you don't have those around the world. >> that's random. >> that's right. and what you've got to hope is a proliferation of those. >> troubling developments today. good it was caught. fran, i appreciate it. nic robertson, tom fuentes. thank you. coming up, the white house today is insisting vice president joe biden's comments are not a departure from what the president has said in the past. but what the president said in the past sounds different than what biden is saying now. we're keeping them honest next. ♪ [ piano chords ] [ man announcing ] what we created here. what we achieved here. what we learned here. and what we pioneered here. all goes here. the one. the accord. smarter thinking from honda. the key is to have a good strategy. the same goes for my retirement. with the plan my financial advisor and i put together, a quick check and i know my retirement is on course. [ male announcer ] with wells fargo advisor's envision plan, you always know where you stand. in fact, 93 percent of envision plan holders say they will retire on their own terms. get started on the plan you need today -- wells fargo advisors. together we'll go far. keeping them honest tonight. joe biden's comments about gay marriage this weekend aren't different than the president's stance on the issue. he said more and more americans understand gay marriage comes down to this. who do you love and will you be loyal to the person you love. sounds like the strongest endorsement for same-sex marriage yet so far. when asked flat out if that means he's now comfortable with same-sex marriage, here's how biden answered. >> i am vice president of the united states of america. the president sets the policy. i am comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women, and heterosexual men and women marrying are all entitled to the same rights and civil liberties. >> the white house insists what he said was not a departure from president obama's position. they say he didn't say anything the president hasn't said before. senior obama campaign adviser david axelrod said this. quote, what vp said that all married couples should have exactly the same legal rights as the president of the united states. mr. biden said he's comfortable with the fact same-sex couples are entitled to all the same lifl rights and civil liberties. but that's not the case. even in states where same-sex marriage is allowed. they have no federal rights. if one member of a same-sex couple is from a foreign country, immigration doesn't allow that person to get a green card if they marry. a heterosexual couple would have that right. biden did not say the federal government should recognize same-sex marriage. he may not be informed on the issue. >> whether gays and lesbians should be able to get married, i've spoken about this recently as i've said. my feelings about this are constantly evolving. i struggle with this. >> you said your position is evolving. you said you're struggling with it. what more do you need to know? >> well, you know, i probably won't make news right now, george. but i think that there's no doubt that as i see friends, families, children of gay couples who are thriving, that has an impact on how i think about these issues. >> again, what i know is what his position was during the campaign and what it is now. you know, he's been very clear about it. he was very clear in the campaign. he's very clear about the fact that his position, that it's evolving. the president said he was evolving. >> did vice president biden's view just evolve farther and faster than the president's. biden was asked if he would short same-sex marriage in a second term he didn't know the answer to that question. half americans favor legalized same-sex marriage. and there's a push from some like nancy pelosi to make a platform for it. jay carney doesn't have an update on the president's personal views on same-sex marriage. pressed carney on why the president won't be more direct. >> the president was asked this and his personal views on this were evolving. >> everybody deserves to live and love the way they see fit. we've got a ways to go the the struggle. what is he referring to if not gay marriage? >> well, i think you have heard him say and those in the administration like myself who speak for him that he opposes efforts to restrict rights, to repeal rights for same-sex couples. >> so can you explain then clearly what -- how vice president biden who said there is a consensus building toward gay marriage in this nation then came out yesterday saying he is absolutely comfort with men marrying men and women marrying women is not an endorsement of gay marriage? >> i think the vice president expressed his personal views. he also said he was evolving on the issue. i think the -- >> when? >> he did not say that. >> he did. >> the spokesperson said it afterwards. >> let me be clear. the vice president -- what he said about the protection of rights of citizens is completely consistent with the president's position on this issue. >> is that really the case? joining me jessica yellin and former clinton white house senior adviser on same-sex civil rights issues. jessica, was this joe biden just kind of speaking out of term as joe biden sometimes does? or do you think this is some part of a calculated effort to have it both ways? >> no, this was not a calculated rollout by the white house. there's no way they wanted this today. the campaign was intending to have today focused on their new ad campaign framing the election. thils was a mess of the white house's own making. they have a convoluted position on gay marriage. he has in a sense taken a position where he says to gay families when he's talking at fund raisers, he'll say things that will indicate to them that he seems to be for possibly gay marriage in a second term. he'll say things like there's much more work to be done when it comes to loving couples have been more rights. when i talk to gay donors, many of whom give to the campaign, they say he will be for gay marriage in a second term but he will not say that publicly. so they are inevitably going to come up at the white house when they're being vague. in a sense they are trying to have it both ways. this was a mess for the white house. >> richard, the president seems to believe this is a states issue. vice president biden is on the same page with the president. but vice president biden is saying that gay couples could have the same rights as heterosexual couples in marriage. but if it's a states right issue, the federal government doesn't recognize those marriages and other federal issues, they don't have the same rights. >> yeah. i don't think that's currently the president's position. although as jessica said, it's very hard to discern where the president is. he's got a neither yes nor neither no position. i think what he -- awhile back when he talked about the rights of states to decide for themselves, i think he was speaking about the new york situation last summer and others. this is an issue we're having a national discussion on. and the president needs to articulate a leadership position. this issue's not going to go away. especially now after vice president biden's welcomed remarks. >> do you think he's trying to have it both ways? he's after the election going to speak out in support of same-sex marriage? >> i think he's gotten some bad political advice. some of his advisers have determined if between now and the election that he remains neutral on this, it may be advantageous for him. i think not only are they wrong in terms of the electoral map, but they're wrong because people want their president to lead on issues like equality. >> doesn't this for the president play into the criticism he got after talking to the former russian president where he talked about, you know, he said he'd have more flexibility after the election? >> well, arguably yes, you could think he doesn't speak his mind fully. but the truth is when you look at the polling data, anderson, there is a cold, hard, political reality. which is there are certain key groups that don't support gay marriage. while the majority of americans do, by small majorities, african-americans, voters over 50, and non-college voters do not support gay marriage. and in a razor thin election, those are groups that the campaign may loathe to alienate. and this is a decision they've made that they don't want to take a risk in coming out on this issue now. and if he's re-elected he could come out on it afterwards and they might have decided no harm done in making that choice. >> richard? >> i think jessica's exactly right. she summed it up very well. but the point is, you know, a majority of americans now support this and nobody who supports -- who doesn't support the president is going to vote against him because of his stands on gay rights. this president has been a terrific p