Richard Clarke for CIA Director

What's more than a little infuriating about Washington is that being right is never rewarded. If you're a pundit who was wrong on the Iraq War, you will always have a seat at the table. God forbid you were right about not going into Iraq, well then you are a fringe player who can't be trusted to be mainstream.

That might seem like an exaggeration to some, but is it? Who was right on the Iraq War and has been rewarded for their prescience in the pundit class? Among the DC media establishment, who has been punished for getting Iraq wrong?

How about getting the intelligence wrong or right? The conventional wisdom is that everyone got the intelligence on Iraq wrong before the war. But that's not true at all. Scott Ritter didn't have it wrong. Hans Blix didn't have it wrong. And Richard Clarke didn't have it wrong. In fact, Richard Clarke had everything from Al Qaeda to Iraq exactly right.

So, why is John Brennan, who worked "the dark side" with Dick Cheney over at the CIA in contention for running the CIA but Richard Clarke isn't? Brennan went along with torture (I'm sorry, enhanced interrogations), illegal kidnappings (I'm sorry, extraordinary renditions) and illegal spying (I'm sorry, warrantless wiretapping). For this, Obama is considering rewarding him with the position of Director of the CIA?

How does that make any sense? How is that change we can believe in? You know what would be change? Putting the people who were right in charge. And the perfect place to start is with Richard Clarke. If we want intelligence work done right (factually and morally), there is only one man for the job. If we want the same old guys running the same old scams, then why did we elect Barack Obama?

Watch The Young Turks Here

Follow Cenk Uygur on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheYoungTurks

Comments

[greymom]

This brings back memories. Remember Condoleeza Rice acting like Clarke was a dissobedient subordinant and she was a tough boss so his allegations were just nothing more than retribution for her disciplining him. Or do I have it wrong. That was my impression at the time.

He blew the whistle on the sorry lot of them and they never have owned up to the lax attitude that allowed 9/11 to happen.

[littlepeople]

How about dissolving the CIA altogether. Billions of dollars spent (no one really know$ how much) to prop up this organization and they have blown just about every major intelligence gathering operation in the last 40+ years. They are totally useless!

[yasmeen]

guys it's over. we have successfully forced brennan to take himself out of the vetting process for cia director. good job. now in the same energy start emailing "contact us" at www.change.gov to put richard clarke or michael scheuer (former head of the bin laden unit that bush dismantled) instead. don't waste your time whining here. take action over there. BELEIVE IT OR NOT THEY READ EVERYTHING and i've seen many names of war hawks we targeted suddenly disappear from the vetting process.

[exmate]

Clark served in the GHW Bush (The Elder Bush) administration and was kept on by Clinton. He worked well in the Clinton White House. The GW Bush (The Lesser Bush) White House was run by a cabal of Neoconservatives headed by Rumfeld and Cheney according to Larry Wilkerson, Powell's Chief of Staff.
The Neocons had the invasion of Iraq on their agenda . Richard A. Clark was effectively isolated from the Principals of the NSC. There was no way that his insight could be revealed until he left the GH Bush White House . His book "Against all Enemies" gave us our first insight of what was going on in the executive Branch.

Clark should be considered seriously.

[Dap]

Dear Brother Cenk,
Just wanted to drop in to wish You, Yours and all the Young Turks crew a Happy Thanksgiving. Agape.

[opines]

Obama is proceeding with extreme caution in his choices to head the CIA and the Pentagon. Both these bulwarks of the Military-Industrial Complex are in the killing business.

Both are dominated by supporters of the Iraq War policy and our use of torture. Torture has been a staple of the CIA.

Obama almost certainly is committed to reducing our worldwide military presence and to reducing Pentagon and CIA budgets.

To do so, he must avoid the fate of JFK.

[ntmessage]

He must avoid the JFK test as well as the Carter test. Both have ample lessons. Perhaps Clinton would be a better model as far as national security.

[wiseapple]

Your mentioning of the MIlitary-Industrial Complex, CIA and fate of JFK makes me think of the beginnings of the CIA with Allen Dulles and his brother at State Dept. Those were the days that have set the tone of our foreign policy ever since. Overthrown governments in Iran and Guatemala, blocking elections in Indochina, giving mind-altering drugs to agents covertly... wow, and who knows abouts the ties to 11/22/63. And we still haven't tried to atone for any of it.

Clark seems like he might be a good choice to head the agency- he would keep the best interests of America at the fore.

[plan9]

If Obama appoints a guy like Brennan it sends too many chilling messages and is a complete betrayal to all of his supporters. It's already bad enough that he's stocked his economic team with the very neo-liberals that created this financial meltdown.Why not go all out and bring back Paul Bremer and Doug Feith?

[fightorleave2]

I hope when you say 'neo-liberals' you mean neo-cons, for that is exactly what a neo-liberal is. Neo-cons were all liberals (aka Joe Lieberman) who came to believe that man will do anything for a dollar so why not pursue that policy rather than arresting it.

[BonnieJW]

Cenk, have you sent these thoughts to www.change.gov?

[ntmessage]

Richard Clarke should get whatever position he feels he can contribute the most to in any of the intelligen­ce/securit­y/moderniz­ation areas of the Obama administration. He was ahead of the curve, in 2000 and is currently ahead of the curve regarding cyber terrorism.
A true and objective patriot that will speak truth to power, whiles possessing essential judgment and credibility. A must in the broken Washington system where connections and special interests invariably end to inferior solutions for the country that we cannot afford, neither financially or to attain any sense of well being for the future.

[Rahan]

Remember that nut job General that Jack Nicholson played in "A Few Good Men"?
What was his retort? ah, "You WANT me on that wall"
It's the CIA, man! The types of people you need there are not exactly ones you'd have over for a Thanksgiving dinner with Grandma.
I think that as long as we have a "The-Buck-­Stops-Here­" mentality from President Obama, he can choose whoever he thinks will implement his vision the best.
As American, there are lines in the sand can we can (should) never cross (i.e torture), but other than that we all know that the CIA is not the Boy Scouts.

[fightorleave2]

You know not of what you speak, Rahan. There is nothing wrong with controlling the CIA or restricting its criminal activities.

[Rahan]

I did not say otherwise.

[ProfessorDuh]

That's an excellent idea. Accountability in the black budget. What a concept.

[totallynext]

Great! He has smarts and honesty - I know not something we have had in the intelligence leadership. But hey - look what CHANGE can bring.

[Jeep]

Dude! You are so right. My 'aha' moment, with respect to the Bush/Cheney trainwreck, ocurred when I watched Richard Clarke testify in front of the 9-11 Commission. He saw, up close and personal, the imcompetence/hubris Bush/Cheney perpetrated on the American people.
Also, Clarke was the only person who apologized to the American people for 9-11, the only one to man up. I love him.

[Paralogos]

Please stop looking at the nation and the world through the glasses of retributive politics. The only reason anyone is talking about Clarke for this role is that he was made a media celebrity for breaking with the Bush administration. That showed a certain amount of courage, but courage is only one of the skills required of the director of the CIA, and arguably not the most important one. We're now talking about governance, not scoring points.

[AsianAfricanAMERICAN]

Reading this article, I didn't think he was promoting retribution. I read it as, they were people who were right about the issues. Why not put the people who were right into these important position?

[Soulsurfer]

Exactly. Reward people with vision and competence.

[Buddysingh]

Courage is a very strong and in my opinion a great virtue to have as a leader. Clarke showed it in the face of thugs like Bush and Cheney. He is a leader and not a follower. He will lead. Also, the intelligence agencies have to have some independence - otherwise anyone can turn it into a personal intelligence collecting agency like this Administration did. I love Obama and I am positive he will do the right things for the country and all americans but you have to have the checks in place and Clarke would do an excellent job. He has seen both sides of the fence and he is a good man.

[WilliePilgrim]

Clarke might have been something of a media celeb for a brief while because of his break with the Bush admin, but that is merely the media perception and the one the media would like us to have. His non-partisan career history and his authority as expressed by his very perceptive, and ultimately proven correct book, reflected not simply a difference of opinion but stands as a potential reason to indict those in the Bush admin who adamantly and willfully ignored the acknowledged experts in favor of listening to their own sychophantic idealogues.
Clarke and Ritter both deserve to be in positions where the truth, as disagreeable as it might be, is looked at squarely. I hope Obama differentiates between those who see their careers in government service as seperate from those who are known for their adherence to the objective truth, regardless of ideology. He may have to keep Brennan and others who were wrong regarding our nation's relationship to terrorism and unwilling allies, but let's hope he has his ears keyed to the corners where the painful truth resides.

[duze]

You have the Clarks wrong, it's Wesley Clark. Also, if were going to bring up wrong decisions and opposite policy, what the hell is Hillary doing on board?

[BARRISTER]

Duzy,YOU have the Clarks wrong; it IS Richard Clark, and I 100% agree with Cenk

[d00derman]

Nah, you are the one that has it wrong...We­sley-Defen­se, Richard-CIA.