congressman peter king in new york is chairman of the homeland security committee. he's been briefed on the plot and joins us on the phone. what are the latest you can tell us? >> i got briefed by secretary napolitano and john brennan. basically it's a nonmetallic deaf vits, intended to be put on an american-bound airline. it never made to it the airline. it's right now as you said being tested and analyzed by the fbi. obviously a concern would be that being unmetallic as to whether or not this could evade security in our airport. that's a real concern. also, this is an ongoing operation. this particular part of it occurred sometime last month, sometimes 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 and the questions, use your judgment as to what you can say or whether say, is it known who made this bomb? bomb makers tend to have a certain signature. there are certain bomb makers particularly in yemen who are well known. is it known who made this? >> there's two things i can say. one is that the person who had the bomb, the exact language i was told, that we no longer has to be concerned about him, number one. number two, you saw there was an attack on an aqa leader in yemen over the weekend. that is related to this whole operation. but other than that i can't go. there's a type of explosive device, petn which was used in the attempted underwear bombing of that plane in detroit. is it similar to petn? >> all i can say is it's nonmetallic and the fbi bomb experts are analyzing it right now. again, this was something very much cause for concern. it's probably one of the most tightly-held operations i've seen. i can tell you myself and no other member of congress know anything about this, including me, until this afternoon. that's unusual. it almost appears as if somehow this was leaked because, i don't know what your sources are telling you. if you go around this afternoon, very few people know anything about it even those in prominent positions, people in the intelligence community. it seems as if the administration was playing catchup this afternoon as far as getting everything out. i can tell you i've spoken to other congressional leaders and people in positions who almost always are briefed. they knew nothing ability it until this afternoon either. it's something with the timing here raising questions. >> what do you mean? what questions? >> as to why it came out this afternoon. 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, i've seen and observed ooh number of these tightly held operations. i haven't seen one so closely held and seem to come out all at once and the administration this afternoon and top people in the various intelligence agencies were not in any kind of position to talk about it. they seem taken somewhat by surprise and also from talking to 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, there were members of congress briefed before it happened. >> do you think there's some political reason if it was leaked out, if it was leaked by the administration, there's some political reason for that? >> anderson, i don't want to get into who did it or whatever. it could be somebody who had knowledge of what could happen. i'm not trying to bring politics into this at all. i'm saying whether it's something 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 and such sensitive sources to get it from, it's risky if something like that is leaked out in an unplanned way. that seems to be what happened here. it could be wrong. from key people i've spoken to this afternoon, they seem to have that impression, too. >> are you pleased with the intelligence so far in terms of how this person, how this device was apparently apprehended? does it tell you that things are -- there's a good safety net out there. >> there's two things. one thing is out stand work. our intelligence agencies and the layers of defense we set up after 9/11, from what i've seen, this operated at 1,000%. it also reminds us, though, that this war is not going to end in afghanistan. al qaeda are constantly trying to find new ways to get at it and they have very 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 they don't stop. if this had been the success -- i tell you this. i was talking to someone today very much involved in it saying if this had happened prior to 9/11, there's no doubt at all this would have been a success, we would have gotten hundreds of americans killed. >> i don't want to say anything appropriate. if this is -- this is noon metallic device, as you've said, metal detectors at airports, from my understanding, cannot detect this? >> i don't want to get into that other than to say tsa would be putting in various components to try to stop it. that's what the bomb experts are looking at right now. >> congressman peter king, thank you for joining us. joining us is cnn nic robertson and fran townsend, tom if wen tess joins us as well and bomb bear from time.com and former cia officer. fran, what is the latest you're hearing from your sources? >> you were asking about the bomb maker. what was said to me by someone with first-hand only in, this had marked similarities to the underwear bomb, the cart raj bomb. these bomb makers have a signatu signature. it shows their ability to adapt. >> they're a learning entity? >> that's right. even though they haven't successfully pulled one off, they're clearly determined and clearly adaptive. >> when you hear congressman king say he was told that the person who was going to deliver this device is no longer a threat. to me that says they're either dead or captured. >> correct. the same thing was said to me. there's only two possibilities. >> you say this is about as high tech as would-be terrorists get. does their sophistication on this worry you? >> a lot. what they're using normally is chemical initiators, you take a syringe and injected one chemical into another and it builds. what you're doing is by passing any sort of metal. it can be done in a plastic container or glass container and it will go to a high explosive which can cut a hole in the skin of an airplane. anderson, as you said, sometimes it's petn. there are other explosives. when 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 threes been such a tight hold. people don't want to talk about the technology and the fact that they're improving their technology. i think these guys are very, very good. i've seen these airplane bombs back in the '80s. they bypassed airport security then. if they continue to adapt, we should consider this a very real threat to our aviation. >> nic robertson looked into petn, the name being used in this, even though it may be different, it is nonmetallic. petn was the explosive used by the so-called underwear bomber. i want to show you what nic discovered about what it's capable of. take a look at this clip. >> 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. >> nic, 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 "inspire" mag scenes, the how to do you magazines, how to make your bomb magazines, if you will. they printed a couple of those inspire 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, porting them to a position where they can go on board aircraft flying the the unit states. so they have a lot of the necessary components and know how at their disposal where they in a relatively relaxed environment 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-made 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 intelligence service provided particular information 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 a mere inches from their noses. materials like that are very hard to detect. and depending how they're packaged and carried poses the terrific 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 airport screenings to get to london. it was one airplane away to being shipped to the united states and successfully arriving. 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, asiri and there's a couple palestinians in yemen helping them improve it, i think the risk goes up. i think one day it will get through. >> fran, do you agree with him? >> 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. >> those are very random. >> that's exactly right. and what you've got to hope is a proliferation of those. >> troubling developments today. good it was caught. fran, i appreciate it. bob baer, nic robertson, tom fuentes. thank you. coming up, the white house today is insisting vice president joe biden's comments about same-sex marriage are not a departure from what president obama 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. at aviva, we do things differently. we're bringing humanity back to life insurance. that's why only aviva rewards you with savings for getting a check-up. it's our wellness for life program, with online access to mayo clinic. see the difference at avivausa.com. keeping them honest tonight. the en sis tense from the white house that vice president joe biden's comments about gay marriage aren't that different than the stance of president obama. 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 gay 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 all the civil rights and civil liberties. quite frankly, i don't see much of a distinction beyond that. >> 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 tweeted 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 the same exact rights, same exact 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, the federal immigration service doesn't allow that person to get a green card if they marry. a heterosexual couple doesn't have that right. biden did not say the federal government should recognize same-sex marriage. he may not be informed on the issue. mr. obama talked about work to be done about his position, quote, evolving over the past few years. >> 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. recent polling shows about half american support legalizing same-sex marriage. and there's a push from some like nancy pelosi to make a platform for it. white house press secretary jay carney says he doesn't have any 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. i don't have to tell people in this room we have a ways to go in this 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 comfortable 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, jay. >> 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 on the part of the administration 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. this was a mess of the white house's own making. the bottom line is the president has this convoluted opinion 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 having 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 get caught up in this craziness at the white house when they're being so 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 gay couples should 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 very candid and, quite frankly, welcome 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 quite frankly. i think some of his political advisors have somehow determined between now and the election if he can be neutral on this, it might be advantageous to 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. >> jessica, d