Talk:Richard A. Clarke/Archive 1

Old Commentary about Old Edits/POV struggle
(restructured as a single section -JLSWiki 20:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC))

We need a disambiguation page for this name, as there is a Canadian sailor in the 2004 Olympics with the same name. Sharkford 21:04, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)

Richard Clarke, who has worked for the Government since 1973, can be called the Dick Clark of Federal Bureaucrats.

--cuiusquemodi 03:18, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * I think this article could use a thorough working-over. Specifically, it seems fairly POV to me, particularly the paragraph beginning with "Strong opinions are the norm..." Quite a lot of time is spent on analyzing (through reference to numerous other sources) Clarke's character and claims, but the article has very little about the man himself. I think the whole discussion/controversy about his book and testimony in the 9/11 hearings should either be moved to a separate article or clearly separated from the rest of the article. It'd be nice if the article spoke "in our own words", so to speak, rather than quoting others so much. Just an observation; the recent media events prompted me to check out this article, and I'm sure his name will be Googled often in the coming days, if it hasn't been already. -- Wapcaplet 05:39, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree. It currently reads like a press release from Clarke with a tiny sprinkling of counterbalancing quotes. Katahon 14:33, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Totally agree. I came here looking for Clarke's birthplace and date -- what every encyclopedia should have. The key quote is a slam from the White House press secretary.

Wikipedia should be factual, not another slanted, selective polemic like this.

---

Note to Sheldon about my edits, which you reverted...

1. First, there is absolutely no question that Clarke's book is "highly controversial". Failing to report that fact significant skews this article by failing to inform the reader of something very pertinent.


 * The fact that the book is controversial is self-evident by virtue of its very topic and contents. I find it impossible to imagine that anyone would think that a book by a former Bush administration staffer could "non-controversially" allege that the Bush administration was guilty of serious lapses in the campaign against terrorism. Moreover, the article makes specific mention of the specific controversies that have surrounded Clarke and his book. I reverted "highly controversial" because it is redundant, not because it is false. However, for the sake of compromise I will retain the word "controversial." (The word "highly" is merely a POV intensifier and isn't appropriate.)


 * I don't agree that "highly" is a POV intensifier. The book is not just mildly controversial as any political book might be.  The book is not just controversial as any political book critical of a sitting president by a former staff member might be.  The book is _highly_ controversial.  However, in the interest of harmony, I will accept just saying that it is "controversial". Katahon 19:30, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

2. In your edit note, you used the word "contradict", and I suppose that it is perhaps a matter of interpretation whether or not Clarke contradicted himself. (Not much, but I understand that your views may differ, so I'm willing to concede that point for now.) However, I didn't use the word 'contradict', and deliberately -- his words of condemnation do stand in "stark contrast" with his earlier praise, even if somehow they aren't a direct contradiction.


 * The phrase "stark contrast" is a polemic, clearly written to convey the POV that Clarke has contradicted himself. Also, once again it in redundant. Further down in the article, the allegation that Clarke has changed his position is discussed specifically, with details providing both his critics' allegations and Clarke's response. Clarke's position is that his statement in August 2002 was made while he was a White House official under orders to put the Bush administration's policies in a positive light. He says that the differences between what he says now and what he said then were matters of "tone," not of substance. Perhaps you should try actually reading his book, in which he says some positive things about Bush while also criticizing him strongly. It is possible to say both positive and negative things about someone. If you want to make the case that Clarke's statements stand in "stark contrast" to one another, you need to show that he has specifically contradicted himself on a point of fact, not mere tone. Otherwise, you're simply engaging in POV rhetoric.


 * I have read the book, and a significant amount of what Clarke has said in the press, and I think it is completely fair to say that the transcript released by Fox News does stand in "stark contrast" to Clarke's latest claims. However, and again in an attempt to reach harmony, I've added this importact fact a 3rd time, worded in a third way.  I hope that if you don't like it, you'll at the very least try to accomodate me to some extent rather than just reverting.  What I want is pretty simple, really -- I want to state, early in the article, that the (real? apparent? we may not be able to say as encyclopedists, but that''s what the argument is about) self-contradiction in Clarke's words is a big part of the story.  I don't accept burying it way down in the article.


 * The reader needs to know that Clarke has published a book. That the book is controversial.  That the book is critical of the President.  And that a big part of the controversy is Clarke's rather astounding change of tone towards the administration.  The reader is entitled to know that and, I think, entitled to wonder at the true motivations.  We need to supply all the facts, right up front, so that the reader will have what they need to know in order to decide.  Katahon 19:30, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

3. You are right that the word 'published' was mistaken. Indeed, it seems likely that Clarke did not realize that his earlier statements would come to light so quickly. I will make this change now. Katahon 03:12, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Once again, you ought to actually read Clarke's book. It's quite clear from his introduction that he expected to be vigorously attacked by the Bush administration upon its publication. It may "seem likely" to you that Clarke didn't expect his earlier statements to come to light, but it wouldn't "seem likely" to someone who has actually read his book.


 * I am therefore reverting most of your changes again. The changes you made merely add your point of view. The reader of this article will already know that Clarke's book is controversial, and will know from the article's discussion of Clarke's August 2002 background statement that he has been accused of reversing himself. Your insertion makes this partisan claim on behalf of the Wikipedia article itself, which is POV. --Sheldon Rampton 04:44, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't think that it's very accurate to say that the changes I made merely add my point of view. Even now, after I've edited the article again, it reads like a press release from Clarke.  I deleted some of the worst parts, for example the completely false claim that the administration has attempted "primarily" (a judgment call, and a wrong one) to discredit Clarke rather than respond to his factual claims.  But I hope you're willing to work with me here to present all sides of the issue.  If you feel that I'm only "adding my point of view", then you should ask yourself what you're doing if you're trying to _hide_ a particular point of view.   Balance is needed.  Katahon 19:30, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have to question if this kind of article is what Wikipedia should be in the business of producing. It's not like there aren't already a million words out there on the internet about the meaning of Clarke and his book. What we can provide that no one else will is the basic facts about his career. I realize that's not nearly as exciting as striking another blow in a partisan political war, but it would be the greater service. -- Walt Pohl 16:54, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Following this reasoning, perhaps the article on Noam Chomsky should merely focus on his career as a linguist without mentioning any of the controversial statements he has made or books he has written. But of course, that would be absurd. A Wikipedia article on Clarke definitely should summarize the claims in his book, along with the statements of his critics and defenders. As with all articles, it should strive to do this in a NPOV way, but it shouldn't shy away from describing the controversies related to Clarke any more than articles on other controversial figures should shy away from discussing the controversies in which they are involved. To summarize these controversies in an NPOV fashion does not constitute "striking another blow in a partisan political war." --Sheldon Rampton 19:15, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with Sheldon completely here, and take this to be a signal that he will work with me to help resolve some of the remaining pro-Clarke bias in this piece, while of course not adding pro-Bush bias, which is not my interest.  Katahon 19:30, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * You will spend all of this time changing the page, deleting each others edits, endlessly bickering about NPOV, and for what? This will just add to the din on the subject.  You could be spending this time on something that might be useful to somebody, like medieval Japanese emperors or something.  You know, the kind of thing that you'd find in an encyclopedia, as opposed to (at best) a "he said, she said" summary that you'd find in a newsmagazine. -- Walt Pohl 20:26, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Hey, Walt, I think we're enjoying our work here. It's an important topic, and it's important to get it right.  I agree with you that the article need not be a "he said, she said", and I further agree with you that not everyone will find it interesting.  I do, and I guess Sheldon does, and we aren't bothering you, o.k.?  Still, I'll take your advice and go now to also edit something less contemporary.  Katahon 21:59, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't think we've merely "bickered about NPOV." To the contrary, I think the article is gradually converging toward a formulation that Katahon and I (and other contributors) can agree upon. I've just made a few more changes to the article, but it retains most of Katahon's latest language. Moreover, the article hasn't "added to the din." The article isn't significantly longer now than it was when Katahon and I first had our disagreements. As for whether this results in a "he said, she said" summary, that is basically what you'll find in the article on Socrates (and, of course, in Socrates' own dialogues, which Plato intentionally wrote in a "he said/he said" style). Today, Clarke is a figure currently in the news, but a year or several years from now, he probably won't be, and by then this article will hopefully have settled into a stable shape that someone who is reading about Clarke for the first time can use to understand why Clarke was considered significant and controversial in 2004. By then, it will be difficult to find that information in newsmagazines, and the value of this article for encyclopedia purposes will be evident. --Sheldon Rampton 02:31, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sheldon is a published author in his own right, which puts him in a unique position at Wikipedia. He is both a "source" of POV, i.e., someone our article can quote -- and a contributor, i.e., someone who has taken the pledge to contribute only "NPOV" articles. If there's anyone who's faced a greater challenge than me, in terms of holding an extreme POV and still trying to write neutrally about it at Wikipedia, it's Sheldon. I'm continually awed by the effort he makes. --Uncle Ed 21:09, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Ed, for the nice words. I took a phrase out of your discussion of the conflict of interest allegations. It really isn't the "usual practice" for media outlets to disclose their conflicts of interest. Actually, disclosure of possible conflicts is the exception rather than the rule even in scientific journals -- let alone in the mass media, which is rife with undisclosed conflicts. I don't have a problem with pointing out that there may have been deliberate "synergy" between CBS and an affiliated book publisher, but it's inaccurate and misleading to suggest that this practice is rare. --Sheldon Rampton 04:43, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You're the expert on media disinformation, so if you say that nondisclosure is the usual practice, I must stand corrected. Thanks. --Uncle Ed 13:47, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

His book
Over 75% of the Richard Clarke article is about his book. Should we link to a second article called Against All Enemies and move all that text into it? If there are no quick objections, I'm gonna be bold. --Uncle Ed 13:47, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * i have no problems, so long as you keep a summary and title in this article with a Main article: link, something like this:


 * ==Book: Against All Enemies==
 * Main article: Against All Enemies
 * Summary here, blah, blah....


 * Clarkk 20:06, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I have no problem either with creating a separate article about "Against All Enemies." In an earlier version of this article, I typed in some excerpts from the book, and someone else redacted those as brief paraphrases. If Ed creates a second article, I might put some the excerpts back in. A good way to address POV problems, in my experience, is to aim for greater specificity of detail, and quoting Clarke and his critics in their own words might be better than simply attempting to paraphrase them. Also, I think it would be a good idea to include some of Clarke's criticisms of the Reagan, first Bush and Clinton administrations. He seems to hold a higher opinion of Clinton than he does of the current Bush, but his book is actually critical of everyone -- including himself. It has become a political lightning rod, but as I've been reading it, I find that it is actually much less polemical than the impression someone would get from just watching the news coverage of Clarke and his critics. --Sheldon Rampton 05:25, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank God that SOMEONE around here is actually bothering to read the book. I'm awfully tired of relying on book reviews from people I don't know. --Uncle Ed 13:32, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ed, I think you moved too much of the Clarke article into Against All Enemies. As it now stands, the article only makes indirect mention of the fact that Clarke has emerged as a strong critic of the Bush administration's war in Iraq and of failings in the "war on terror." In addition to making those statements in his book, Clarke has made them in media interviews and in public and confidential testimony to the congressional committee investigating 9/11. I think it's fine to have a separate article describing his book, but this article still needs to have a basic description of Clarke's positions.


 * i agree, i actually suggested that a summary of the main points of the book be left here under the heading (see my comment above...) Clarkk 01:11, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'll wait a day or two to see if someone else makes revisions along these lines or to see if anyone strongly disagrees. If not, I'll jump in myself and take a stab at it. --Sheldon Rampton 20:06, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Opponents of Clarke's book also alleged that he had a bias against Bush, citing an interview in which Clarke stated that he voted for Gore in the 2000 presidential election." This appears to imply that any US citizen who voted for Gore had a bias against Bush. That seems not only silly, but to ignore the correlation to intelligence -- that is, it might be that Clarke was too intelligent a person to vote for Bush :) Tasman 04:48, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed - I took it out.--csloat 00:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Rwandan Genocide and Clark's role
I find it highly curious why there is zero mention of Clarke's role as the primary architect of PDD-25, which intentionally limits the U.S. in peacekeeping efforts, essentially raising the requirements for action so high as to effectively kill all U.S. peacekeeping contributions, which the Pentagon despised having to do at the time.

He was given the order to draft a doctrine that would keep the U.S. out of the world's most desperate places and he went along and did it with zero compunction.

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd25.htm


 * If you have information that should be here, by all means add it.--csloat 01:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Can we work on adding more info regarding Clarke's PDD25 and policy decisions related to peacekeeping and Rwanda? In terms of influence by Clarke to international affairs, the change to peacekeeping policy has likely had a larger impact than even 9/11, of which the article's bulk represents. Benjamin Glasgow 16:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

CLARK BLURTS KNOWLEDGE OF IRAQI YELLOWCAKE CACHE!
In an National Public Radio interview (broadcast on 90.9 fm /Phila) promoting his 2004 book, Richard Clark was rattled by a caller who questioned his comparisons between Bosnia and Iraq regarding the effectiveness of the post-conflict progress. Unable to explain how a direct comparison could be made between the semi-modern society in Bosnia and 16th Century-style society in Iraq, Mr Clark diverted the question. At one point in his response he attacked the Bush administration for its failure to secure, within the first days, a yellowcake uranium cache which he knew to exist in Iraq! Disconnected, the caller finally rang through again to point out the enormity of the "scoop" to a stunned call-screener, and request a followup question from the interviewer. The show ended without discussion on that issue. I was the caller.


 * (Above was by user Grox.1) Sorry, caller, you were wrong.  This was no scoop; well, it was a scoop back in 2003 when the Washington Post reported it (see 5/10/03 WP).  Iraq had nuclear material that the IAEA was well aware of, because it was in facilities that they controlled.  You see, you don't just throw nuclear material in the garbage can when you force a country to shut down a nuclear program in its early stages, like Saddam's in 1991.  You have to put the radioactive material somewhere.  You can find information about this facility in this 6/5/03 Pentagon briefing.


 * This is no smoking gun. What it is, however, is evidence that the US invasion probably helped terrorists acquire nuclear material, since the Pentagon failed to protect this facility.  (It is somewhat bizarre that there is so much press attention to Rove and Plame right now but that there has never been much attention to this, aside from the piece in the WaPo).  --csloat 00:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, you don't really think Iraq before the war was a "16th century-style society," do you? You might want to read a book or two.--csloat 00:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Partisan Hackery & Mike Scheuer
I removed the "partisan hack" sentence inserted by TDC. That, and the link to the Time magazine hatchet job on Clarke's book, is pure POV with no relevance here. It's obvious the Time article is extremely unfair to the book, which is actually quite balanced in many ways (as another user also notes on this page). I doubt that TDC has even read the book. In any case, there is already information in the article that Clarke is controversial; the claim that he is a "partisan hack" is just silliness. Also, the line TDC keeps putting in about Scheuer is totally misleading. Scheuer is very critical of both Bush and Clinton for not doing enough about bin Laden, but his comments specifically about Clarke do not address that issue. His comments about Clarke are quoted on the page; the sentence TDC inserts makes it seem as if Scheuer thinks Clarke was the main person not taking OBL seriously. In fact, Scheuer is quite in agreement with Clarke about the seriousness of the jihadist threat as well as about many of the things that should be done to counter it. Please do not add this misleading claim again. --csloat 01:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Pure POV with no relevance? Come again? A widely held criticism of Clarke summed up nicely in the Time piece is relevant, especialy since it exists no where else in this article.


 * I have, BTW, read the book. And while I found it to be n interesting insight into his experience during 4 administrations, surely anyone can see that Clarke had an axe to grind and an ass to kiss. Because Clarke served 4 administrations, it would seem he should bear more of the responsibility for the security disasters than he allows in his book. During his tenure two world trade center disasters occurred, the bombing of the USS Cole, the attacks on US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and makes some of his accusations dubious at best.


 * He has been caught overstating events. Are Clarke's criticisms of Condoleezza Rice either accurate or fair? No. She is a smart woman and I don't think she is quite as dumb as he wants to make her appear.


 * You are right, Scheuer is very critical of both Bush and Clinton, but this article is not about Bush or Clinton, it is about Clarke, and Scheuer is a reputable critic, who has had some less than flattering things to say specificaly about Clark. Most every article gives ample space to address critics of the topic, why should this one be different?


 * Perhaps calling Clarke a “hack” is overboard, but to dismiss all criticisms is bullshit. TDC 02:48, July 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * The Time article does not "summarize a widely held criticism"; it is one person's perspective in an unsympathetic book review. And it is a hatchet job - he leaves out the balanced nature of the book.  If you actually read the book then you already know this, which leads me to wonder if you are distorting the book intentionally.  Clarke is hard on everyone, including himself.  It's obvious he prefers Clinton to Bush but it's also obvious that he felt the evidence supported that point of view rather than simply being "partisan."  The issue here is not whether Clarke was fair to Condeleeza (frankly I do think those comments are fair but that's beside the point, and he doesn't criticize her intelligence; just her complete lack of perspective or interest in learning about the nature of the new threat confronting the US after the cold war) or whether he should have done a better job against al Qaeda but rather whether it is correct to call him a partisan hack.  I agree Scheuer is reputable (though a firebrand) but as I said above he did not make the claims about Clarke that you claim he did.  I left in his criticism of clarke; I just took out your (or the Weekly Standard's) bogus interpretation of that claim.  Scheuer actually agrees with Clarke on the important points (such as how to address the jihadist threat).  Your edits make it sound as if Scheuer thinks 911 was mainly Clarke's fault. Finally, I do not "dismiss all criticisms" of Clarke; I am simply insisting that we stick to what actually occurred and was said.  I'm reverting your changes.  The main points you raise - that Clarke has been criticized by some, including Scheuer - are not deleted by the reversion.  --csloat 03:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Whether or not it is correct or incorrect to call Clarke a partisan is not up for us to determine, I had stated it in a NPOV manner and cited a mainstream source making the allegation   . Clearly it is a common enough charge, that he dismisses or minimizes the perceived failings of Clinton’s counter terrorism efforts and that he overemphasizes the perceived failings of Bush’s counter terrorism efforts, is not only valid, but is a widely held view.


 * The Weekly Standard article is a bogus interpretation of Scheuer’s views on Clarke? That, once again is your interpretation as you have not read the Vanity Fair article, which I did at my library last evening.


 * And for the last time, I did read the book, and I have already commented on it. TDC 14:45, July 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * You did not make this claim in a npov manner. There is already information in the article that he is controversial in this way.  The only "mainstream source" in your above links is Time magazine, and the author of that article is hardly mainstream.  National Review and Insight are right wing hack magazines, and Krauthammer (from the townhall link) is also a well known conservative hack.  I think it is fair to say that Clarke has a number of political opponents, and that he is dismissed by many on the right for being partisan, but we should not pretend this view has much currency in the political mainstream.  I believe you when you say you read the book; my point is just that if you did read it then you, like the guy in Time magazine, are intentionally misreading it and distorting Clarke's conclusions.  I was trying to assume good faith when I claimed you probably had not read it.  If you wish to quote the Vanity Fair article that is fine too but I don't give the Weekly standard piece much credence the way it distorts the CBS interview. --csloat 18:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * If you felt that the change was made in an NPOV manner, then you should have changed it to reflect a more NPOV tone, not delete it out right. I find it ironic that on the one hand you feel comfortable lecturing me on “mainstream sources” when you just referenced AlterNet in another article. As much as National Review and Insight may or may not be right wing hack magazines, they are most certainly notable and widely read. But if you want to go there, perhaps we should apply this same sourcing standard to all articles; bye bye The Nation, New Republic, David Corn, Counterpunch, etcetera. And as far as the Time source goes, as I said before, it nicely sums up the most often repeated criticisms of Clarke. The only reason the Weekly Standard piece was in here was because Vanity Fair is not online, and as I stated, it is an accurate summary of one of Schuer’s points. If you would accept strait quotes from the article in Vanity fair, even thought these might be difficult to verify as there is not online edition, that would be fine with me.


 * If you click the Alternet link you'll see it's a Washington Post article. But my point is not that no biased article should be referenced, but that these particular articles are essentially hatchet jobs.  If you want to put the claim that there has been an organized attack on Clarke by neoconservative ideologues trying to trash his credibility you would be a lot closer to the truth.  I am happy to look at the Vanity fair article - can you provide a citation at least?  We have libraries and databases for articles that are not online; even without a link you can quote it.  I am not going to presume others are making up quotes, and I can easily check on it if I suspected it.  And frankly I doubt that the WS piece summarizes Scheuer accurately because I have read just about everything Scheuer has written and he agrees with Clarke on the major points -- that for example the Bush Administration is acting counterproductively when it acts as if OBL hates our freedoms, or that fighting terrorists in Iraq in order to not fight them at home is nonsensical and counterproductive. --csloat 22:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * My bad - the alternet link is not the WP article; that was a different link. But that is a link to an interview with a former Reagan appointee; hardly a liberal hack.  Definitely not the mirror image of, say, Krauthammer.  --csloat 05:16, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Why do you continue to remove a sourced item critical of Clarke? Contrary to your prior claims to the contrary, none of the material you removed exists anywhere else in the article. TDC 20:35, July 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * I did not delete - I left the item in, which is the criticism exchanged with Scheuer. I remove the POV (and inaccurate) speculation about its meaning from the Weekly Standard.  This is explained over and over in tedious detail above. Please respond to the arguments here.  In any case we can rewrite it to reflect the reality which is that there was a campaign to discredit clarke, not a "debate" about whether he is a "partisan hack", which is just absurd.--csloat 00:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Update - I deleted the duplicate copy of the "too partisan" paragraph and then added information about the smear campaign against Clarke. Hope this is acceptable to both of us (and anyone else who is reading this).--csloat 02:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * More acceptable, except for the fact that you attempted to pass off an editorial as gospel truth. TDC 02:45, July 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * No; I simply quoted it. You deleted the quote entirely.  I've edited it for more NPOV; if you think it should be more so please edit but do not delete.  Also stop trying to sneak in your edits on the Clarke-Scheuer debate; you have not justified those changes here, and I have specifically refuted them above.  --csloat 05:16, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Clarke's change in tune
I'm uncomfortable with the recent edits by RonCram about Clarke's change in perspective on the Saddam and al Qaeda issue. He is right to note it here but the way it is worded is ludicrous - it makes it sound like Clarke had a sudden change of mind in 2004 which could not be further from the truth. He says in the 60 Minutes interview that he was under constant pressure from Bush to find evidence but when he went to find it it wasn't there. He says in his book that his team looked for connections several times under Clinton and did not find any connections to Saddam. It is pretty clear that he did not change his mind out of the blue, and had come to this conclusion before September 11th.

On a related note, the additions about Laurie Mylroie's book are silly. It was a terrible book, full of misinformation, and it got bad reviews from a number of people, not just Clarke; should we put all those comments on their pages too? Should we include Juan Cole's analysis of Mylroie's complete lack of expertise here too? --csloat 20:03, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * So, RonCram whats your position on this - do you actually believe that Richard Clarke, who served 4 administrations, 3 of them republican, is a traitor? Because that's what your edits seem to point to.  It's a bizarre conclusion, given his public service.   But given you are editing without even responding to the comments about it - well, it's pretty clear you feel strongly about it.  It will be interesting to hear if you have any evidence to back these edits up.--csloat 12:31, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The edit gives absolutely no detail of the Mylroie book accusations, only that Clarke dismissed them. The book is generally considered to be a crackpot conspiracy theory originally derived from a CIA disinformation campaign. If people want to put the he-said she-said back in they should provide an argument over specifics. Mylroie is at best a (bad) journalist, not an academic and not an intelligence professional. Mylroie's reputation is limited to neocon circles.--Gorgonzilla 12:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Moreover I fail to see the point of the 'change in tune' claim. Clarke had a theory that Saddam was up to no good, he researched the theory, the evidence strongly suggested the opposite, Clarke rejected his theory. That sounds to me like the sort of thing any sane person would do.--Gorgonzilla 12:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Sloat You stated Clarke served 4 administrations, that is not really truthful and misleading. I served in the Navy in the 70's so I served during two administrations, Nixon-Carter. Since they were my CinC's, I served under them, but they did not rely on my opinion. Clarke started working in the federal government during the 70's - he "served" during 7 presidencies since he started working for us. But after Prez. Clinton promoted him, all hell broke loose The One and Only Worldwise Dave Shaver 03:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaxdave (talk • contribs)

RonCram's little jihad
User:RonCram has gone on a jihad to insert claims that there had been a "pact" between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda on every page where it is even tangentially relevant. He has done it on the Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda page, the 2003 Invasion of Iraq page, the Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq, and now here (and probably others) He is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, inserting this info here not to illuminate our understanding of Clarke, but to continue his little jihad to make people believe that there was a conspiracy between Saddam and al-Qaeda. The word "pact" should not be used at all here. Clarke never used it, and his claims of an "agreement" turned out to be false when he and others investigated them later. Perhaps Ron thinks Clarke is some sort of traitor who would deliver America to its enemies by shifting his stated opinion without the facts to back it up -- that is certainly the implication of his edit, which makes it seem as if Clarke suddenly reversed his position with no evidence. In fact, he and others looked into the connection between Saddam and AQ and concluded that they were wrong in 1998-9. There is no evidence of any pact, and I have debated Ron about this on several other pages, and he concedes the arguments in the debate but then goes and inserts this claim on other pages. It is very frustrating, and I'm asking others to take a closer look at his edits when he makes them.--csloat 23:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

PS I just reverted his change. The claim he made was that Clarke's shift on Saddam-AQ was what made him controversial, and that is simply and utterly false. The shift was barely commented on anywhere but the Weekly Standard and now on Wikipedia. The controversy surrounding Clarke had to do with a Bush Admin figure coming out against the Admin when it's clear loyalty is so important to that Admin. His shift on Saddam-AQ was not widely attacked nor even widely commented on by the mainstream mass media. Perhaps it is useful to discuss the fact that Clarke shifted his position after he, the NSC, the CIA, the DIA, the FBI, the State Dept, and others reviewed the evidence more exhaustively than they ever had in 1998-9 (a time period when Clarke and a few others were the only ones even taking seriously the al Qaeda threat). Such information might be useful here, but only as part of a discussion of Clarke, not as a means of one editor making a point because he lost an argument on another page that is only tangentially related to this one.--csloat 00:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * csloat, your statements are both inflammatory and untrue. People need to know why Clarke is such a controversial figure.  Why did people attack him so?  It was because he changed his position after leaving the Bush Administration.  You know well enough the "pact" is a quote from a daily newspaper in Milan and was quoted in the Senate Report.  You know the same thing was reported in newspapers around the globe and in Newsweek.  You also know that Richard Clarke believed in the agreement at one point.  While the Sudanese deny the al Shifa plant was involved in chemical weapons development, neither the Clinton nor Bush Administrations have apologized for Clinton bombing the plant.  The Senate Report admits that Iraq trained al Qaeda in chemical weapons.  I did not lose the argument on any page.  The point that the "pact" was reported in newspapers around the globe is not debatable.  The fact Clarke believed in the "agreement" between Iraq and al Qaeda resulted in a joint development effort in chemical weapons is important to this page.  The fact Clarke believed this and later made the statement there was never any evidence of the agreement is what makes Clarke controversial.  csloat, your main goal is to keep information from people.  That is not the purpose of an encyclopedia.  Let's stick to the facts and let the facts speak for themselves. RonCram 02:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * RonCram - Clarke is not controversial because of anything he said about a "pact" and you know this. He is controversial because he was in the Bush Admin and came out publicly against it, sold a book, etc.  If it was because of what he said about Saddam and AQ why did the newspapers universally forget to mention that?  I am not opposed to mentioning his change of tune on this issue, but not as the source of his controversial status and not as a means of making a point about another article.  The plant was possibly connected to AQ; whether it was connected to Iraq is more controversial (but in either case, not relevant here).  The point that the word "pact" was used in one Italian newspaper (not "newspapers around the globe") is simply not relevant here - Clarke's position is all that is relevant, but it is false to call it the source of the controversy.  My goal is not to keep information from anyone but I am concerned that you are twisting information in order to make a point that is not relevant to this page.--csloat 04:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I also have a question Ron -- do you really believe that Richard Clarke is a traitor? I think you have said before that you did not.  If that is the case, why do you think he would change his position, hiding what you believe to be known evidence of a pact between Saddam and al Qaeda, thereby giving aid and comfort to our enemies?  You do not seem to believe Clarke is telling the truth about his opinions now.  Clarke, of course, is not the only figure who changed his mind on this matter between 1998 and 2003.  You have many key figures in the Clinton Administration.  You also have the conclusions of the CIA, DIA, Senate, 911 Commission, NSA, and FBI.  Do you think all these people are lying in order to help out Saddam Hussein?  Do you think they are just incompetent?  I'm just curious as to why you are so attached to this thoroughly discredited conspiracy theory; it's odd.-csloat 04:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The relationship between Saddam and al Qaeda is not discredited in the least. I do think both the Senate Report and the 9/11 Commission used unfortunate language to describe a complex relationship.  Read the Senate Report and you see they found that Saddam trained al Qaeda in chemical weapons and offered safehaven to al Qaeda members.  You also find that both the Clinton and Bush Administrations believe al Shifa was involved in chemical weapons development in a joint venture involving Sudan, Iraq and al Qaeda.  Al Qaeda, as you well know, has received support from several countries who do not agree with Osama religiously - Sudan, Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq.  Osama may be a nutcase religiously but he is astute enough to take support where he can get it.  Saddam has supported terrorists Islamic extremists besides al Qaeda.  I am certain you have heard of MEK, an extremist group that mixes Islam and Marxism.   There is much more evidence of a closer relationship that has not been considered credible because it cannot be verified.  But when you take all of these pieces together, they form a coherent piece that corroborates the published reports of the pact between Saddam and al Qaeda (Newsweek, Novosti, et al).  These reports have never been retracted, corrected or clarified.  Of course, I have only touched on the subject here.  There is much more evidence than this. Regarding Clarke, I do not consider him a traitor.  I do consider him to have a bad case of sour grapes and to be highly politically motivated to hurt Bush other Republicans as much as possible. RonCram 21:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * MEK has received more support from American conservatives like John Ashcroft than from Saddam Hussein.--csloat 22:01, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * As for Clarke, if you think someone who has been in public service for 30 yrs would sell out his country to its enemies for "sour grapes" or political motivations, it sounds like you think he is a traitor. Anyway, nothing you have said above amounts to evidence of a "pact", so I don't see anything "unfortunate" in the language or conclusions of either the CIA or Senate on that particular issue.--csloat 22:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The Senate Report admits that Iraq trained al Qaeda in chemical weapons. That is an operatonal relationship and it is unfortunate the Senate Report did not word it that way.  The Senate Report admits the Saddam offered and al Qaeda accepted its offer of safehaven.  The Bush Administration made it clear that those who offer refuge to terrorists would share their fate because safehaven is an operational relationship.  Unfortunately, the Senate Report did not word it that way.  The Senate Report admits there is good reason to believe Saddam and al Qaeda were teamed up in Sudan for chemical weapons development.  Most people would call that an operational relationship, but the Senate Report did not word it that way.  I think that is unfortunate.  The pact also involved an element of nonaggression which the Senate Report states Osama chose to abide by.  Also, I don't believe John Ashcroft ever supported the MEK since he is neither Muslim nor Marxist.  RonCram 14:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Do the research yourself; don't take my word for it. As for the rest, your second-guessing of the Senate's and CIA's language is not encyclopedic.  I'm done trying to convince you of any of this Ron; I am just interested in producing encyclopedia entries that are not distorted by the propaganda you pull out of the Weekly Standard.--csloat 18:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Weasel sentence?
"Clarke is believed to have played a limited role in Free Press publishing a book by  James Risen that is being investigated by the United State Department of Justice  for disclosure of classified National Security Agency programs." What exactly is that supposed to mean? Believed by whom? Free Press isn't mentioned anywhere else here, so the mention of it comes out of the blue. What book is this? I haven't been able to find anything saying that a book by Risen is being "investigated" by the Justice Department. This vague, contextless sentence sounds like a weaselly attempt at insinuation. It was added by 68.217.165.247. --Mr. Billion 23:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

"According to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States" Paragraph
This paragraph states "Clarke had initially claimed, under oath, someone in the Bush Administration had asked for the flight. According to Clarke's initial testimony "the request came to me and I refused to approve it." He claimed he then consulted with the FBI." Whereas in the source cited there is no statement from Clarke that the Bush administration had asked for the flight, he says: "CLARKE: I don't know." To which Roemer replies: "ROEMER: We don't know how many people were on a plane that flew out of this country. Who gave the final approval, then, to say yes, you're clear to go, it's all right with the United States government to go to Saudi Arabia?" Clarke then says: "CLARKE: I believe, after the FBI came back and said it was all right with them, we ran it through the decision process for all of these decisions we were making in those hours, which was the Interagency Crisis Management Group on the video conference.

I was making or coordinating a lot of decisions on 9/11 and the days immediately after. And I would love to be able to tell you who did it, who brought this proposal to me, but I don't know. Since you pressed me, the two possibilities that are most likely are either the Department of State, or the White House Chief of Staff's Office. But I don't know."

As far as I can tell nowhere in that source does he say under oath that it was definitely the Bush administration that had handed him the proposal to allow the Saudis' to leave, only that it could have possibly been them. If Iam right the "Clarke had initially claimed, under oath, someone in the Bush Administration had asked for the flight." statement is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts and should be deleted. I admit that I have not gone through the entire transcript so perhaps Iam missing something? Thanks BTAUS 17:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point. In the transcript Clarke is repeatedly pressed to tell the Commission who brought the propasal (orig. from the Saudi Government). Time and again, he keeps saying "I don't know":
 * "And I would love to be able to tell you who did it, who brought this proposal to me, but I don't know. Since you pressed me, the two possibilities that are most likely are either the Department of State, or the White House Chief of Staff's Office. But I don't know."
 * I will make the edit accordingly. Alcarillo 19:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Letter from 9/11 victims' families
I can find no evidence that the quote from the letter (erronously attributed to a Jim Boyle -- it was someone else with that name) was referring to Clarke. There was another letter, however, which I've dug up and cited. But the link to the original posting from the New York Post is not freely available. Alcarillo 21:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment: POV (this article should be called Criticism of Richard A. Clarke)
As per the heading here, this article is amazingly POV as it gives incredible "undue weight" to criticisms of Clarke. This problem is so replete I think the best remedy is to delete the vast bulk, as adding enough balancing information to make it neutral will take a lot of effort and time. I realize this might be viewed as drastic, and that is why I am putting this out there/here for comment. This article is a disservice not just to Richard Clarke and career professionals like him, but to Wikipedia as well. -JLSWiki 20:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I should add in anticipation, just because the writers have repeatedly couched everything with "critics say" or have included cites to critics attacks on Clarke, does not make this biography NPOV. Nor does the fact that such attacks, criticisms and accusastions were in fact made, make it NPOV.-JLSWiki 20:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have been thinking about this, and reading not only this page's history and discussion page but those of figures comparable to Clarke. I see and respect what editors like Sheldon tried to do in explaining the controversy around Clarke in 2004, but I still humbly assert that the current result is a not a good encyclopedia article about Richard Clarke, but rather a POV article.  It gives little weight to Clarke's career, especially his position in the late 90's to 9/11, and gives undue weight to criticisms of Clarke, both by overemphasis and by inclusion of some lesser or unfounded criticisms.  Indeed, even as an article primarily about the 2004 controversy, it contains more criticisms of Clarke than it does of his criticisms of the Bush administration that started the controversy.  When I have time I intend to try to edit this article appropriately, but in the meantime I respectfully anyone considering this to look at it objectively.  Thanks.-JLSWiki 14:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. Until it is fixed, the NPOV tag is appropriate here. csloat 09:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm in agreement as well. Certainly, sourceable criticisms should remain, but there's got to be more to say about the man then just to make a list of who doesn't like him. Seraphimblade 11:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * With due respect to the editors, this article sucks. I am quite disappointed.  I personally think that it is almost beyond repair.  I respect the person who will try to clean it, but based on the discussion page, this is an article that many people feel is an opportunity to score a kill in the political arena. Clarke is a very important figure and this article does little justice to him, or his critics for that matter.  The section on Against All Enemies is the worst.  Only one short paragraph on one of the most important works on September 11th, by someone who was in the White House when the planes were still in the air?  Followed by an equal length paragraph on some unimportant criticism about whether Rummy was at some meeting...found on page 200-something. Please.  I know the book has its own article, but that is ridiculous.  You can say I agree with the above.  Far more controversial figures have far better articles.  Far less important people have faaarrr better articles.  Did I say I was disappointed? Moomot 05:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, your comments are in line with my views I tried to express above. As I said and as you say, it really should be re-written.  Since my original complaint/RFC comment above, I have not had the time to do much with it, but I hope to over time. -JLSWiki 15:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've taken the hopefully helpful step of deleting some stuff that simply doesn't belong here. An entire paragraph about an error on page 224 (or whatever) is just completely unnecessary; if anything, such comments belong on the page about the book itself but not here.  The other item I deleted was a comment that he had been criticized by Hitchens and Hayes; I deleted it because that criticism is non-notable and because the sentence was worded in a pretty obtuse manner; it seemed to be both defending and attacking Clarke at the same time.  It is true that Clarke was pretty viciously attacked when he testified to the 9/11 commission, but most people today recognize those attacks as political and they don't have much lasting significance.  I don't see the point of preserving them here in such a manner -- a sentence or two indicating he was attacked is all we need.  In the bigger picture, Clarke's significance overall is far more than the attacks on him in an election year. csloat 02:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * All good, I just wasn't bold enough to do that myself since I started this discussion as a relative newcomer. I hope to find the time soon (not before next weekend) to add some material about what Clarke actually did and said.-JLSWiki 03:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * i moved the paragraph about the national security principals meeting to the page about the book. i agree it shouldn't be here but i disagree it's a minor and ridiculous error.  Clarke uses the meeting to show that days before 9/11, rumsfeld was more concerned about iraq than al qaeda, to the point were he looked distracted when clarke mentioned al qaeda during this important meeting of principals.  that fact that rumsfeld wasn't at the meeting is thus a significant criticism of the book.Anthonymendoza 17:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really, but it's reported in a RS so that's fine. I made a minor change to the sentence however; indicating it is Walter Pincus and not a host of unnamed critics who point to a minor error on p. 237.  Clarke certainly cites other evidence for Rumsfeld's distraction; claiming this possible error (assuming Pincus is right about it) destroys his whole argument smacks a bit of WP:NOR.csloat 18:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I personally found the article *very* biased for Clarke, for example timeline of events makes it sound like Bush had warning of terrorism but ignores first attack on WTC during Clinton Era (history of Clarke as noted covers several decades). It should be noted if Clarke had no comment on Clinton for 8 years, compared to bush for around 1 in possible to stop WTC, or otherwise how Clinton is claimed to have been better or worse by Clarke.

References?
Shouldn’t they be visible? Lovelight 08:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Add maintenance category
Per Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 21, Category:Missing middle or first names has been added to this talk page. &mdash; DomBot /  ChiDom  talk  09:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Criticism
Does it bother anyone else that the largest section on this article is "criticism"? That seems a bit biased. J&#39;onn J&#39;onzz (talk) 16:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)