portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary united states

9.11 investigation

Question re: Condi's Talk

I have a question raised by seeing Condi last night. Maybe you can answer it?
When I watched the 9-11 commission's questioning of Condi Rice last night, I learned that the Bush Administration had decided to keep most of Clinton's anti-terrorism people in place: in cluding Dick Clark and the Head of the CIA.

This strikes me as odd, concidering all I know about the Neocon's desires to completely change foreign policy.

From the perspective of veiwing the Bush Administration rise to power as a NeoConservative Coup, what are we to take from this info about them retaining Clinton's people.

Looking at the way that they have treated the CIA after 9-11, it seems like maybe they wanted Clinton's people there so there would be scapegoats to blame.

Any thoughts?
In the words of Guvnuh Wallace 09.Apr.2004 14:02

Ba'thist

"There ain't a dime's worth of deference between 'em."

In the field of foreign policy, there is not that much difference in the goals of Neocons and the DLC. Think of one as representing the Likud and the other as Labor.The only Clinton-era foreign policy which might have disturbed them, the Oslo(peace)PROCESS, had already disintegrated by the time Bush took office. As for intelligence, Richard Peril can tell them all they need to know about "the Muslims', the Chinese and the Russians which doesn't come through the normal CIA or NSA channels, so they're way ahead of the game. And your scapegoat theory is intersting...

I doubt it 09.Apr.2004 16:38

-

I doubt they thought things through as thoroughly as you suggest. A lot of people are kept over from previous administrations. They are the people who do the grunt work. Who else can be an expert on terrorist threats than the people who've been monitoring them for the last four years? It is their bosses that are usually replaced. Those posts are more political.

Their aims are the same 10.Apr.2004 16:35

controlling all sides of debate

Both the Republicans and the Democrats are committed to the spread of American imperialism. Both agree that the best way to "run the world" is to enforce "free trade" and US military and political agendas world-wide by whatever means is necessary(blackmail,murder, coersion, lying, etc),and then convincing us through their various media tools that the government is operating in "our" best interests, that "we" are responsible because we can vote, and that we are living in a benign, if occasionally bumbling, democracy, which is the "best system of govenment in the world".

The US government was founded by a group of white guys, some of whom were committed to throwing off the yoke of multinational corporations in Europe and creating a more "egalitarian" system((excluding anyone who wasn't a white guy, but constructing a govenmental system with some flexibility). This system has had a lot of padding over the past couple of hundred years, given the outrageous biomass of the North American continent, and indeed, the earth. As the bodies of magnificent trees and huge numbers of animals and great swaths of fertile land were turned into money, the capacity for forgiveness by the planet wanes, but there is still a bit left, if we are willing to work with it.

So the US government has been playing this same game since its inception. Easily-exploitable natural resources have made it possible to get to where we are now, and most native populations of humans and other animals and plants have been extinguished in the process. If we are to survive, we must slow the accleration of degradation down. The planet appears to have amazing regenerative powers which she is inviting us to take advantage of.

Every now and again, the people rise up and throw a monkey wrench into the machine. The labor movement, the women's suffrage movement, the civil rights movement have made great strides in the possiblities for justice and peace. Problem now is that the easily-exploited resources are gone, and the world is armed with nuclear weapons. Big problems, but not insurmountable.

Condi and Kerry and Bush are just distractions.It's time to start throwing wrenches and planting gardens big-time!!