Transcript for Aug. 13

SEC’Y CHERTOFF: I think it’s certainly much harder for them to operate in Pakistan than it was under the Taliban in Afghanistan. But one of the things we do all over the world is look at pockets or areas in countries where we essentially have kind of a wild west, because we’re concerned that those may be areas where al-Qaeda will take root and start to be able to conduct some of its activities.

MR. GREGORY: Do you—are you completely confident that the Pakistani intelligence service is intent on bringing members of al-Qaeda to justice?

SEC’Y CHERTOFF: Pakistan has been very cooperative with us. I think we’ve generally been pleased. Obviously we’re always urging our allies to do everything they can to protect not only ourselves, but to protect the whole world.

MR. GREGORY: It is, of course, your job, a major part of your job, to understand how al-Qaeda thinks. This is what the vice president had to say this week with regard to that, after Senator Lieberman’s primary defeat. This is how Newsweek reported it: “Vice president, Dick Cheney, darkly warned that the Connecticut primary victory of antiwar candidate Ned Lamont over Sen. Joseph Lieberman would only encourage ‘Al Qaeda types.’ Interviewed by NEWSWEEK, former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge bridled at his former colleague’s remark: ‘That may be the way the vice president sees it,’ he said, ‘but I don’t see it that way, and I don’t think most Americans see it that way.’” What’s your view of how al-Qaeda interprets our domestic politics?

SEC’Y CHERTOFF: Well, first of all, I stay out of domestic politics. What I do think is important is that we be very clear in our message to the world—and this has to be true on a bipartisan basis—that we are steadfast and resolute in the war against terror. I think if we suggest any weakness, that does encourage them to believe they can carry out their missions.

But I want to emphasize this, David. The targets here are all Americans. They, they do not distinguish between Republicans and Democrats. So we are all in this together, and this has to be a unified effort across the board.

MR. GREGORY: Let me ask you about our coordination with British authorities.

What worked here?

SEC’Y CHERTOFF: Well, what worked is deep relationships, trust, the fact that we did not have leaks prior to the takedown. You know, that’s one of the critical lessons out of this whole thing. The British trusted us with very sensitive information, and they were able to do it because they were confident we weren’t going to leak. That’s why leaks are so pernicious. Not only do they actually reveal secrets, but they undercut the basis of trust which is the foundation of our whole international effort.

MR. GREGORY: The liquid explosives that have been detailed as part of this plot, was this a cocktail that had been seen before, learned about before?

SEC’Y CHERTOFF: We’ve actually been focused on this for quite some time, the notion of mixing benign ingredients together. But what seems to have been new here was the degree of sophistication about how these would be disguised as ordinary travel items. And I think that’s what we’re analyzing and adjusting for, to make sure that we’re keeping pace with the way the enemy adapts.

MR. GREGORY: But had you given thought before to not allowing liquid on flights?

SEC’Y CHERTOFF: I, I—we’ve actually thought about it. We’ve done a lot with the screening, and with the training the screeners to teach them how to identify new types of detonation devices. And, in fact, over the last year, as we pulled back from some of the emphasis on keeping nail clippers off the airlines, we focused on training precisely for this kind of new generation of explosives.

MR. GREGORY: But there has been a question of priorities. This is how The New York Times reported it last Friday with regard to liquid explosives:

“Cathleen Berrick, director of the Government Accountability Office’s homeland security and justice division, told a Senate committee in February 2005 that the Transportation Security Administration, part of the Department of Homeland Security, redirected more than half of the $110 million it had for research and development in 2003 to pay for personnel costs of screeners, delaying research in areas including detecting liquid explosives. It has continued to redirect some research and development money, she said. ‘They’ve identified it as a vulnerability, they knew it was there, and they’d taken some steps to address it,’ Mrs. Berrick said.” Why hasn’t this been a larger priority before now?

SEC’Y CHERTOFF: It actually has been. But one of the things I think you need—people need to understand is training the screeners is an important part of this effort. It’s not all about technology. It’s about knowing what to look for in terms of the configuration of things that might be a detonator. It’s behavior pattern recognition, which we’ve, this past year, started to train people how to do.

You know, what the Israelis do is they don’t focus on technology, necessarily. They have people asking questions and looking at behavior in order to identify terrorists. And those are the tactics that we, in the last year, have now started to roll out in our own procedures.

MR. GREGORY: But are you confident that the United States government is ahead of the terrorists, actually thinking of the technologies and, and the kind of tools they might use?

SEC’Y CHERTOFF: Absolutely. You know, I’ve had a number of discussions with Kip Hawley, the head of TSA, on precisely this issue over the last year. How do we move to the next generation? How do we start to turn away from worrying about the nail clippers, which is an issue we’ve dealt with, to deal with next generation of explosives and other kinds of devices? And so we are continuously training, evaluating. We actually have groups that put themselves in the mind of the terrorists and try to figure out how they would carry out attacks if they were terrorists. All of this is an approach that we’re taking to stay ahead of where the terrorists are.

MR. GREGORY: But you talk about screening being a priority. The 9/11 Commission issued recommendations in December of 2005. It gave some pretty poor grades on this front. When it came to transportation security: airline passenger pre-screening, an F; airline passenger explosive screening, a C; checked bag and cargo screening, a D. As we’ve learned this week, these are vital areas. What grade would you give yourself?

SEC’Y CHERTOFF: We’ve done a lot over the last year to address precisely these issues. We—we’re doing a lot more screening of cargo that goes into the holds of passenger jets. We’ve done a lot more training. We’ve got pilot projects under way over the last several months looking precisely at liquid explosives. And with respect to passenger screening, we’re pushing to get more information that would make us better at it.

But we do have a challenge here. There are some people who push back against this, who say we shouldn’t get more information about passengers. And I think that that’s precisely the kind of debate we need to have. If we can’t get a reasonable amount of information on people who are getting on airplanes, and if we can’t get it in a timely fashion, we are tying our hands against what is still a very serious threat.

MORE FROM MEET THE PRESS

Meet the Press Section Front

Nov. 8: Casey, Barbour, Rendell, roundtable, Brokaw Nov. 1: Tim Geithner, David Plouffe, roundtable Oct. 25: Cornyn, Schumer, Burnett, Sorkin, roundtable Oct. 18: Jarrett, Dodd, Kyl, Shriver, Podesta Oct. 11: Levin, Graham, McCaffrey, Myers, roundtable Oct. 4: Ambassador Susan Rice, roundtable Sept. 27: Bill Clinton, Paterson, Kyl, Webb Sept. 20: President Obama, Sen. Graham, Rep. Boehner, roundtable Sept. 13: Durbin, Cornyn, Dean, Gingrich, roundtable Sept. 6: Axelrod, roundtable Meet the Press Section Front   Add Meet the Press headlines to your news reader: