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?