Yeah, I made that point in the comments to that post and got some rather silly little semantic games back in response.

Drum is simply throwing meat to the seething masses. He doesn't even try to think through his posts anymore.

Drum is technically correct, but only in a way that is still damning to the Clinton Administration. Clinton had a multitude of "top priorities," which prevented him from accomplishing much of anything.

Pride. Check.

Envy. Double check. Exclamation point.

Anger. Check.

Avarice. Check.

Sloth. Check.

One post, five of the deadly sins covered. Bravo, Mr. Hobbs.

I think that most folks who aren't hardcore Dems have caught on to his penchant for untruths.

Is this the best the rightwing can do? Oh, yeah--let's have a national debate as to whether Richard Clarke said counterterrorism, in the last democratically-elected President's administration, was the 'highest' priority or 'one of the highest' priorities.

Meanwhile, it appears Condi Rice perjured herself on several occasions today. Here's a f'rinstance:

Today: "There really was nothing that looked like it was going to happen inside the United States...There was nothing demonstrating or showing that something was coming in the United States."

From US Senate Select Committeee:

"In May 2001, the intelligence community obtained a report that Bin Laden supporters were planning to infiltrate the United States" to "carry out a terrorist operation using high explosives." The report "was included in an intelligence report for senior government officials in August [2001]." In the same month, the Pentagon "acquired and shared with other elements of the Intelligence Community information suggesting that seven persons associated with Bin Laden had departed various locations for Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States."

When providing a cite, it's always good to link to the document that actually contains the text you're quoting. In this case, you failed.

"Bin Laden determined to attack inside the United States" what else does she need, the date, place and time. Vacationing in Crawford Texas was more important than holding top level meetings to even attempt to do something with this info. This administration was not serious about terrorism.
And why would you demote Clarke from a cabinet level position in the Clinton administration to a staff position if you are serious about fighting terrorism from the outset?

On the off chance that this is what you were looking for, a quote in context is probably more appropriate:

In May 2001, the Intelligence Community obtained information that supporters of Usama Bin Laden were reportedly planning to infiltrate the United States via Canada in order to carry out a terrorist operation. This report mentioned an attack within the United States, though it did not say where in the U.S., or when, or how an attack might occur. In July 2001, this information was shared with the FBI, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), U.S. Customs Service, and the State Department and was included in a closely held intelligence report for senior government officials in August 2001.

There. Isn't it nice when others do your legwork for you?

And why would you demote Clarke from a cabinet level position in the Clinton administration to a staff position if you are serious about fighting terrorism from the outset?

Fellah, if you think that Dick Clarke was a cabinet level officer in any administration, you need to do some research on civics before chiming in.

That said, Clarke stated under oath that he requested a move to cyber-terrorism (I guess the WTC bombing, the barracks bombing, the USS Cole were enough to put on his resume' for counterterrorism).

Odd. Here's a list of Clinton's entire Cabinet, and Clarke's not on it.

Wow. Slate could be wrong?

Oh, and this is interesting:

How does one become a member of the Cabinet? The 15 Secretaries from the executive departments are appointed by the President, and they must be confirmed by a majority vote (51 votes) of the Senate. They cannot be a member of Congress or hold any other elected office. Cabinet appointments are for the duration of the administration, but the President may dismiss any member at any time, without approval of the Senate. In addition, they are expected to resign when a new President takes office.

So, if Clarke actually had been a member of Clinton's Cabinet, he'd have resigned when Bush took office. I'm thinking Bush having sacked him would have been redundant, at best.

Finally, from the source: look at the last paragraph on page 87; no mention at all is made of Clarke's supposed cabinet-level post. The same manual in Clinton's last year in office makes no mention of him or his post, either. Cabinet-level posts created under Clinton are all mentioned explicitly, and there's none I can see that include Richard Clarke. I went back a few years in Clinton's presidency, and I can't find any mention of Clarke as a member of the Cabinet, or being appointed at Cabinet level.

So,other than Salon's say-so, I'm thinking there's very little to support the idea that Clarke held a cabinet-level post.

Some of you guys are so clueless! Reports of non-specific (lacking time, place, names and methods) terrorist intent received and processed by the USG every year number in the dozens. Many times post 9/11 we have gone to high alert (all without incident) and yet many of the "Bush was asleep at the switch" group complain about the inconvenience and intrusiveness of heightened security measures.
In the summer of 2001, what level of alert posture and actions would have been appropriate for something like this( no Monday morning quarterbacking, please): "supporters of Usama Bin Laden were reportedly planning to infiltrate the United States via Canada in order to carry out a terrorist operation" (remember, no specifics)? Close the borders? Shut down the airlines?, strip search all Arab-looking men? Waive the sanctions against CIA/FBI cooperation on domestic intelligence gathering/sharing? Pre 9/11, you would have tolerated absolutely none of it. One other factoid for you: the perpetrators of 9/11 were already in the country and had been for some time (pre-Bush, in fact).
True freedom and security require sacrifice, commitment and cooperation, not intellectually inconsistent and highly selective fact sifting.

Oh, and I think >this neatly explains why people thought he was cabinet-level:

Myth: Dick Clarke was demoted and "stripped of his Cabinet rank" by President Bush.

The Facts: Dick Clarke never had Cabinet rank.

Dick Clarke continued, in the Bush Administration, to be the National Coordinator for Counterterrorism and the President's principal counterterrorism expert. He was expected to organize and attend all meetings of Principals and Deputies on terrorism. And he did.

During the Clinton Administration, Dick Clarke regularly briefed President Clinton because President Clinton did not meet regularly with his DCI. Since the beginning of his Administration, President Bush has met daily with his DCI for his intelligence briefing. President Bush believes he should get his intelligence principally not from White House staff, but from those directly responsible for US intelligence.

Anyone unaware of the cabinet offices should reconsider discussing politics on a public venue, IMO.

My, my. It's liike watching Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom where the babboons pick the nits off one another and eat them.

Clarke wasn't in the cabinet {chomp, pick, chomp}--you need Congress to approve a Cabinet office {chomp, slurp, pick}--Limbaugh never said Clarke was in any Cabinet {pick, pick, slurp}

Obviously, it's time for a Government 101 lesson.

The phrase in dispute is Cabinet-level. Fourteen agencies are established by law and are known as "statutory cabinet-level departments." Presidents, at their discretion, may select any number of additional agencies to be Cabinet-level positions during their term in office.

The Supreme Court upheld this as recently as 1989 (Public Citizen v US DoJ) which held the President has wide-ranging and sole discretion in appointing people to fill newly created offices.

For example, the appointed Bush just appointed a 'manufacturing czar.' That would be considered a cabinet-level post.

And this is exactly the role in which Clarke held as a Cabinet-level officer in our last democratically-elected President's WH.

But this all deflection away from the central issue of Condi Rice's perjury.

None of which actually provides evidence that Clarke was cabinet-level. Nor is there any evidence that this "manufacturing czar" is cabinet-level.

Odd, too, that the one place you'd expect that Cabinet-level personnel would be introduced doesn't mention a "manufacturing czar". Government 101 indeed.

What, the discredited commenter formerly known as Guy Cabot but now using the alias "JadeGold" spinning, putting forth falsehoods and passing along B.S.? No!

Again, this all deflection away from the core issue that Condi Rice committed perjury.

It's pretty apparent that this appointed administration had more than adequate warning that the US was going to be attacked by al Qaeda and had a pretty fair idea that it would involve hijackings.

Yet, they did nothing and nearly 3000 Americans lost their lives.

Yet, Ricky West seems intent on celebrating 9/11--along with his reverence for the confederate flag.

Again, this all deflection away from the core issue that Condi Rice committed perjury.

Sure, if you define core issue as the subject change you're attempting in order to avoid acknowledging being completely incorrect.

Still awaiting you to garner enough guts to take the $20 challenge, "my daddy's blog". Come on, Cabot, step up to the plate.

Does it irritate you to see so many people find out who you really are, Cabot?

Sorry, Cabot. It'll never end (unlike your pathetic blog).

One post, five of the deadly sins covered. Bravo, Mr. Hobbs

And yet you accuse OTHER people of ad hominum attacks. I shall have to add "hypocrite" to your description along with liar, fraud, and troll.