Posted on 06/04/2002 6:51:28 AM PDT by Carl/NewsMax
Former Vice President Dan Quayle said Monday night that the lack of a firm policy to deal with terrorism during the Clinton administration was more responsible for leaving America vulnerable to the 9-11 attacks than any FBI or CIA intelligence failures.
"I don't believe 9-11 happened because of an intelligence breach," Quayle told Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes."
"I think it was really a policy breach. It was the inaction of the previous administration, by and large, that al Qaeda -- and bin Laden in particular -- thought that they could hit the United States, and there would be a retaliation maybe of a cruise missile but nothing more than that," he explained.
The comments make the former vice president, who served under President Bush's father from 1989 to 1993, the highest ranking former U.S. official to suggest that the Clinton administration should get the lion's share of the blame for not preventing the 9-11 attacks.
Quayle also insisted that President Bush would have struck back more forcefully against al Osama bin Laden after earlier terrorist attacks on U.S. interests, taking action that could have averted 9-11.
"I can assure you if a USS Cole or an American embassy that had been hit under President Bush's watch, there would have been a different response," he said. "And I really think that bin Laden.... thought that he could hit us (on 9-11) and that the response would not be that much."
The former vice president also suggested that political correctness played a key role in allowing the 9-11 hijackers to elude U.S. anti-terror watchdogs, even after valuable intelligence on al Qaeda suspects was forwarded to Washington from the FBI's Phoenix and Minneapolis offices.
"This was, clearly, a situation where the FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C. (said), 'Oh, well, we can't do that. We might be getting into racial profiling,'" Quayle said. "'We might be doing something else, getting into wiretapping when we really don't have probable cause.'"
Appearing on the same show, former FBI assistant deputy director Daniel Coulson blamed a Clinton executive order for the failure of U.S. intelligence agents to infiltrate al Qaeda terror cells.
"The first thing you have to remember is that (Clinton) issued an executive order that said.... you can't use an individual who has terrorist connections in order to develop information about terrorist organizations, which is a huge bungle."
Coulson said the Clinton executive order, "defies reason, it defies logic, and it's not consistent with the law."
"Every day in a criminal case, we use unsavory characters," he explained. "We use people that are murderers to find other murderers. And that puts a great burden on the CIA, and it impedes their abilities to do their job."
Or, I guess you can call him a Bushbot.
Quayle was my first choice to run in 2000, but he dropped out early.
It doesn't defy reason, if Clinton's purpose was to protect the terrorists.
There's alot of truth to that. Too many complainers never get involved and have no idea how things work and how to change things from the "inside".
I've always liked Dan Quayle! He speaks so clearly and without the BS spin.
We little people can think and say the same thing ( see forum topic GUILTY CLINTON: 9-11 It Ain't My Fault http://www.newsmax.com/ubb/Forum13/HTML/000213-17.html ! ) but no one listens. I hope and pray that the American Public will listen to Dan Quayle!
I am reading Howard Kurtz's SPIN CYCLE, and one of Clinton's protective devises was to avoid having stories on the Evening News...if a scandal had to get out, they preferred print media, because millions would see the report if it hit TV!
With Quayle's past problems with the Media, maybe, just maybe..they'll put Quayle's comments on the News to make fun of him and the TRUTH will get out!
TRUTH: Clinton left America VULNERABLE to attacks!
"I don't believe 9-11 happened because of an intelligence breach," Quayle told Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes."He speaks the truth, imho.............
"I think it was really a policy breach. It was the inaction of the previous administration, by and large, that al Qaeda -- and bin Laden in particular -- thought that they could hit the United States, and there would be a retaliation maybe of a cruise missile but nothing more than that," he explained.
The comments make the former vice president, who served under President Bush's father from 1989 to 1993, the highest ranking former U.S. official to suggest that the Clinton administration should get the lion's share of the blame for not preventing the 9-11 attacks.
Quayle also insisted that President Bush would have struck back more forcefully against al Osama bin Laden after earlier terrorist attacks on U.S. interests, taking action that could have averted 9-11.
"I can assure you if a USS Cole or an American embassy that had been hit under President Bush's watch, there would have been a different response," he said. "And I really think that bin Laden.... thought that he could hit us (on 9-11) and that the response would not be that much."
The Legacy..........
My vote is for worse. Much worse. In fact, the worst that can be inflicted on a human.
Don't you know that if the Conspiring Clintons could get away with it, that is exactly how they'd market themselves!
Sex Sells! That's why there's a Bill Clinton in the first place!
Why couldnt the headline read Dan Quayle?
Well, maybe I'm missing something, but I'd really like to see this one but can't seem to finger it on the list. Any Freepers know which Exec Order this is ??
THIS LIST is all of Clintbilly's EO's. Can any pick out the one referenced ??
I think you mean the Sudanese. The Saudis are involved in this up to their beards.
Yeah, it'll be on page 23 - one paragraph near the bottom. Headline will be something like: Quayle Plays Politics with 9/11
I doubt it will be in the NYT at all, unless it's mentioned on the Op-Ed page, where they'll rake Quayle over the coals. They'll say something about his Murphy Brown speech, which is still considered thoughtless by liberals, as a way of warning their readers not to take it seriously.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.