Lou Dobbs Tonight

And thanks very much for joining us, sir.

JAMES WOOLSEY, FORMER CIA DIRECTOR: Good to be with you, Kitty.

PILGRIM: Now there is no who, what, when or where, no specific, and yet the announcement today. Do you think this is too vague to be helpful, or do you think this is extraordinarily helpful?

WOOLSEY: Well, neither. It’s probably a little bit helpful. People should know that something may be coming and that al Qaeda is planning something major before our elections. That’s been speculated about, and there’s been reports about it actually for some time.

I think that it is not very helpful to people in planning and trying to decide what they’re going to do. But at least they know a little bit more to be alert, and, sometimes when you’re a little bit more alert, you pick up on things that you otherwise might not pick up on.

I think they had to say it. If they had known who, where what and when, they probably would have kept quiet about it and gone into those facts very privately in some detail.

PILGRIM: The color code — we’re not shifting — at yellow, elevated still. Do you agree with that, or do you think we should maybe switch?

WOOLSEY: There have been enough jokes about the color code and duct tape, I think, that they may be in the mood of saying that they’re really not going to go moving those colors around unless there’s some very, very specific reason to do so.

PILGRIM: Let me ask your considerably expert opinion. Are we better prepared than we were before September 11 for a large-scale, as they say, attack being planned?

WOOLSEY: Again, I think the answer is somewhat. We’re better prepared probably with respect to protection of aircraft. There’s still some mistakes made, as in the case of a small plane that got everyone confused here in Washington some weeks ago, but it didn’t have its transponder registering on all parts of the government’s receivers.

But we — the Department of Homeland Security announced today they’d given those radiometers to pick up radiation — hundreds of them to local law enforcement. If there should be a dirty bomb, that sort of thing would be useful. hey have a new command post. They have new communications.

But some of the basic things like dirty bombs in containers on container ships or on rail or attacking toxic chemical transportation in rail cars or something like that are very tough problems, and I don’t know that there’s been much attention at least effectively paid to improving our resilience in those areas.

PILGRIM: And so you think in certain areas we’re largely unprepared?

WOOLSEY: Well, I think there are — there’s planning and thinking going on, but, in a number of these areas, particularly with respect to weapons of mass destruction — look, smallpox — they can’t even figure out how to get the first responders vaccinated, and, if the first responders are not vaccinated and there’s a smallpox outbreak and that would be from terrorism, we’re really behind the power curve in trying to get everybody vaccinated in time.

So some of this is just reluctance to take steps that could have problems themselves but would at least be preparatory. Some of it is the problem is really hard. Some things they’ve made progress on. It’s a mixed picture.

PILGRIM: CIA Director George Tenet had his goodbye party today, and now we have an acting direction, John McLaughlin. By his only being an acting director, do you think he’s in any way limited. Do you think this is a bad situation? Should we have a permanent director?

WOOLSEY: Well, John McLaughlin is a very able analyst and executive in the intelligence business. He worked for me when I was director in the early and mid-90s. He will do a fine job as acting director.

But at some point — possibly this fall, possibly next winter — they need to move after a few months to having a full-time confirmed director. I think it’s a political question more than any other whether the administration wants to nominate someone and have a lot of hearings on him or her and the nature of the CIA issues during the middle of the election campaign.

In substantive terms, John McLaughlin can very easily carry on until next winter or beyond if he should be picked to be the permanent director.

PILGRIM: So much focus is being put on the election and, you know, the al Qaeda threat up to the election, the appointment of a permanent director after the election.

Do you think we’re sort of taking a wrong time cue here? Shouldn’t we be thinking more permanently?

WOOLSEY: Well, it would be fine to nominate someone. A number of the people who have been speculated about, such as Porter Goss, would be very fine directors of Central Intelligence. But I don’t think there’s a matter of urgency in getting someone in there permanently as long as you have a career officer who’s as able as John McLaughlin to serve on an interim enacting basis.

When I stepped down in January of 1995 for several months, my deputy, Admiral Studeman, who was a long time career intelligence professional, did an excellent job. And like McLaughlin, Bill could have been the permanent director if they’d chosen to nominate him.

So, I think we’re blessed by somebody as able as McLaughlin. I don’t think there’s an urgency to move to having a nomination.

PILGRIM: All right. Thanks very much for your insight this evening. Former CIA Director James Woolsey. Thank you.

WOOLSEY: Good to be with you.