Meaning the same policies held.
If not, why not?
Good question, Karen. My impression is that it's less the "policies" which is, of course, a word that can cover many sins and more an attitude. I gathered from the Benjamin and Simon book that Richard Clarke, who was the chief anti-terrorist guy in the Clinton admin and who continued on into the Bush administration, and the portion of the NSC staff devoted to anti-terrorism work were constantly ramping up more activities as they learned more and, with variable success, getting other agences to do so as well. The FBI seemed to be the biggest problem. It's my impression that increased activity was put on hold during the early months of the Bush administration the better to rethink matters. I'm mildly ambivalent about that. On the one hand, it seems reasonable that an incoming administration would rethink the activities one it replaces. On the other hand, however, the Bush folk apparently were a bit more than that, and wanted nothing to do with any Clinton policies. That was a mistake. In the context of doing it, it would seem to be a small mistake. It looms larger in hindsight. |
