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

[DthemanN]

Seriously, send this to Obama ASAP. Richard Clarke would be an amazing pick. I've read his latest books and this is somebody who has been in the game for 4 administrations yet is pragmatic, realistic, and relatively low on dogma. He know what he is talking about.

Obama's picks so far have been more outstanding than not. Mostly very qualified, smart, intellectually curious, and practically minded. R. Clarke would be a great continuation of that trend. I hope he keeps Gates as a transitional Sec Defense but I would love to see Chuck Hagel in there eventually.

[MajorKong]

Better yet - Valerie Plame. It would be worth it just to see Robert Novak spontaneously combust.

[bertisbert]

You know, it's funny to see what's happening. And some people saw it coming all along. I remember hearing Dennis Kucinich say, "wouldn't it be nice to have somebody in charge that was RIGHT the first time?" Hell, yes, Dennis, and now that we have the big, mainstream guy taking charge, we are once again realizing that mainstream will always mean more of the same. I still have lots of hope for how Obama will lead, and some of this is expected, but it is still disappointing, and it's pretty easy to predict that people with track records of incompetence will continue to serve incompetently.
Actually - it's quite sad

[anachoret]

You seem to believe that running intelligence has nothing to do with getting people to believe what isn't true. How do you create a reality without debunking the one that exists?
It's like hiring an advertising agency that won't tell the consumer that your product is perfect for attracting the opposite sex, all the cool people use, will open the doors of wealth and success, etc.
The intelligence on Iraq got us to do what Bush wanted us to do. The people who were right lacked the ability to convince the people that they were correct, even with the truth supporting them.
As to the pundits and the media... I think the mainstream is more interested in a good story than a true story. If it doesn't sell, it is doesn't it isn't sold. How do you put dramatic music and giant banners around something than doesn't "Shock and Awe" the consumer?

[GDliberal]

Wasn't Richard Clarke involved with rendition during the clinton years?
I think so. That should automatically disqualify anyone.
Before the clintonistas start with their but, but, I consider kidnapping to be
kidnapping no matter what the circumstances.

[Yermammy]

Yes he was. I think you could rein him in though. I'm sure they all have dirt on them to some extent. There's dirty and then there's filthy. We need to quit it, period. All this intrigue just accelerates distrust. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson said to avoid foreign entanglements, but Neocons and Neoliberals want power at the end of a gun. It helps the War Inc. people, don't you know.

[JailNeoconVicts]

Was he? Source? Instance? Or just smear?

[mmerose]

Succinct and right on target. Oh oh - you're right, fella! Where's your next job comin from?

These people you mention, especially Hans Blix who was "in country," are why I could not stomach Hillary Clinton's lies about why she voted for the invasion. It wasn't like the information wasn't out there, but she asked us to believe she was brilliant enough to be president, pay no attention to her dummying up on Iraq, being a follower and a sucker to the Bush fraud when she's running to be our leader....
Lady, just admit you voted out of cynical political expediency because you thought you needed to look tough, shed a discreet tear about how it's even hrder for a woman in this world, apologize and admit you were weak. Oh, and turn down the State job. Yeah,right. Now it's Obama who has to admit he appointed her out of cynical political expediency, shed a tear about how it's harder for....

[BMBTHC]

No argument here.
Kristol gets another venue too. Apparently being wrong is good. That's what we should teach the children.

[SteveWeisert]

Is there any way you can tell this to Obama ? I agree with your sentiments.