Talk:Richard A. Clarke

What a joke
Two-thirds of this article is an attack on Clark's critics and his role "in the months before 9/11"; not a word about what anyone can see with a click to Al Qaeda page: "the Sudanese government offered the Clinton Administration numerous opportunities to arrest bin Laden. Those opportunities were met positively by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, but spurned when Susan Rice and counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke persuaded National Security Advisor Sandy Berger to overrule Albright."  nobs (talk) 02:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I concur with caveat...the section cited in the other article also claims the 9/11 Commission did not find this to be true, and that since at that time there was no indictment on bin Laden, legally the U.S. had no right to arrest him. At that time it was the Saudis that wanted Laden. It's important to tread lightly here as BLP applies.--MONGO 06:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * An indictment or warrant isn't needed in a national security case, only a Presidential Finding. nobs (talk) 15:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Did some tweaks; still think the 9/11 Commission section could be trimmed down, both in the main section and the criticism. It's loaded with extraneaous nonsense. nobs (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If anything is less than reliably referenced then it should go. Anything that paints Clarke in an unfavorable light must follow the undue weight clause of NPOV and be reliably referenced.--MONGO 20:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed the BUMILLER link; the context was so vague and text in mainspace didn't even remotely reflect the source, it was probably there to only to provide a link to Rush Limbaugh. nobs (talk) 20:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And the Scheuer quote in the critism section reads,


 * but the actual underlying source reads,


 * I'm going to move the relevent portions out of the criticism section and into the Clinton administration section and reduce some redundancy.  nobs (talk) 21:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely no evidence for this dubious claim: "Jamie Gorelick, the only member of the 9/11 Commission to read the President's Daily Brief",salon.com reference doesn't even mention Gorelick's name. Look's like this bio page had been hijacked to attack Clarke's enemies who demoted him. nobs (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Article is simply a BLP that is under the radar mostly.--MONGO 13:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That old link to the referenced article no longer works, but if you go to a capture on archive.org or the article's new URL at Salon, the article not only does mention Gorelick's name, the very paragraph you deleted was taken verbatim from the Salon article.  An easy web search shows it was also reported in the New York times. --Undomelin (talk) 23:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

More misinformation
This mainspace says,
 * "...portions of Clarke's August 6 Daily Briefing Memo, entitled "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US"..."

attributing authorship to Clarke. The blue link to the article makes no such reference to Clarke as the author whatsoever, and attributes it to the CIA, as does. Richard Clarke did not work for the CIA. Richard Clarke worked in the White House on the National Security Council staff. These obvious, outright distortions have been in this mainspace for at least 7-8 years. It is pitiful. nobs (talk) 03:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I took the whole paragraph in question out until it can be proven (a) Clarke authored the memo, or (b) had some relationship to it that can be reworded to fit a context relevent to his biography. The remaining sentences in the paragraph are an attack on the personal integrity of Condoleezza Rice based on a memo Richard Clarke evidently never even authored. nobs (talk) 04:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

"criticism"
The criticism section remains a redundant mess. Some lengthy portions are not criticism at all, but rather "support Clarke's account". Being that much of the 9/11 Commission section, and earlier sections, are entirely based upon his Memoirs, I'd suggest some parts of this criticism section be trimmed down and combined to limit criticism to just that -- criticism. I'll give it a try. Any questions, please discuss. nobs (talk) 04:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

and again
I came here because of a source that in no way supports the statements claimed for it, but judging from the comments here, this is a serious problem with the article, both pro and anti-Clarke. The quote was: "Clarke advised Madeleine Albright during the Genocide in Rwanda, ... Clarke told Samantha Power, "It wasn't in American's national interest. [7] If we had to do the same thing today and I was advising the President, I would advise the same thing." He directed the authoring of PDD-25[7]..." footnote [7] is the PDD, which is provided at wikisource. There is no reference at all to Rwanda in the PDD at wikisource, and the only reference to Clarke is his name in the long list at the top of the page. I'm probably missing something, but can't see what... alacarte (talk) 18:58, 28 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Also, the PDD is a primary source, and it is not up to Wiki editors to interpret it, especially if they get it as wrong as that. Secondary sources should be used.Parkwells (talk) 16:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Richard A. Clarke. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/002772.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Richard A. Clarke. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040402114931/http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/002772.php to http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/002772.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Richard A. Clarke. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120327202623/http://www.sphinxseniorsociety.com/sphinx_1970.html to http://www.sphinxseniorsociety.com/sphinx_1970.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150301211218/http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2013-12-12_rg_final_report.pdf to http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2013-12-12_rg_final_report.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Too much reworking of arguments about 9/11
There is already an article about the 9/11 Commission and about other aspects of these issues. Agree with above concerns: this bio article about Clarke should not be an attempt to fight these battles all over again, with quotes from newspapers, and unpaged cites from his book. This material needs to be summarized, preferably from secondary sources with some distance, not just from his own book of misunderstood PDDs. Much has been written about these events by now. Parkwells (talk) 16:32, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

George Tenet's "hair on fire"? Not in Clarke's book.
Up until today the "Bush administration" section stated:
 * Clarke wrote in Against All Enemies that in the summer of 2001, the intelligence community was convinced of an imminent attack by al Qaeda, but could not get the attention of the highest levels of the Bush administration. He wrote that Director of the Central Intelligence Agency George Tenet was running around with his "hair on fire".

The only occurrence of "hair on fire" I have found in that book refers to Charlie Allen, CIA's National Warning Officer, at the start of chapter 3. (There are no page numbers in the Google Book.)

Tenet is mentioned three places in the book, twice with reference to being alarmed about terrorism / al Qaeda, just not using the phrase "hair on fire". This pithy term appears to have been borrowed from another subject, and misattributed. I find nothing suitable to replace it; what remains is adequately stated by the first quoted sentence, so I am simply deleting the second one. – •Raven .talk 14:10, 9 June 2019 (UTC)