Despite his public resignation in the aftermath of a sex scandal, former CIA director David Petraeus is still believed by many pundits to be President Barack Obama’s best choice for CIA boss again.
A number of political writers have backed the idea of a David Petraeus rehire. Emily Yoffe at Slate.com thinks that Petraeus has “already been humiliated and rehabilitated. Obama should rehire him as CIA director.”
“I have a great idea whom Barack Obama should nominate as his next CIA director: Gen. David Petraeus,” wrote Yoffe. “With that simple announcement, Obama could strike a blow for civil liberties and against the silly and destructive sexual Puritanism that has taken down so many public figures.”
Yoffe said although there are some people who are happy that Petraeus was forced to resign because of his consensual affair with “hagiographer” Paula Broadwell, “both Democrats and Republicans have been mourning the loss of a public servant of extraordinary ability” since the departure of the general. And now, since “it has become clear that the events were wholly of a private nature and national security was not breached,” the president should say that he is bringing his CIA director back to the post.
“Because Obama is a man with such a blemish-free private life, this could be a “Nixon in China” moment. It would be impossible for a Bill Clinton, say, to strike such a blow for sexual sanity. But given that even that insatiable sex fiend is back in the arena and much revered (by some), surely that means we have grown up enough to realize that just because you’re in public life doesn’t mean every aspect of your marriage is fair game… It’s time to let Petraeus get back to work. It would probably even please Mrs. Petraeus to see less of him around the house right now.”
As noted by The Week, there is enough ground to think that “a David Petraeus rehire could be in the cards” as he is still popular among both Republicans and Democrats in Washington, “having been first nominated by George W. Bush and re-appointed by Obama.”
Diane Dimond at The Daily Beast opined that to ignore Petraeus’ four decades of expertise over a mere personal matter would be a mistake.
“It’s not just David Petraeus and his former mistress Paula Broadwell who are the big losers in this unfolding scandal—America has lost too,” Dimond wrote.
“This country has invested heavily in developing Petraeus into the successful and well-decorated military leader he became. And a decades-long ascension to the elite branches of government doesn’t come cheap,” Dimond added.
“Adjusted for inflation, it’s more than a million dollars just on his education,” retired Maj. Mike Lyons told The Daily Beast.
No doubt, the nation has got “a considerable return on a considerable investment” on “brilliant young men like David Petraeus,” but all will go in vain if he is not pulled back in.
Dale McFeatters at Newsday expressed similar views and said that Petraeus’ departure was a waste of talent. He opined:
“Petraeus was the model of what the modern military is seeking in its top officers: a combination of warrior, leader, diplomat and scholar with a doctorate from Princeton. It is not exaggeration to say he was the nation's most esteemed military leader.”
According to McFeatters, if Petraeus were “an ordinary politician,” the entire scenario would have been completely different altogether. He could have survived the controversy “with the obligatory confessional press conference.”
But being a soldier, “Petraeus had no choice but to resign.”
Prior to the sex scandal, Petreaus favorability ratings were high and he was spoken about as a potential GOP vice-presidential candidate this year, reported The Inquisitr.
An ABC News/Washington Post poll found that although Petraeus’ popularity has dropped since the scandal, more Americans still see him favorably than unfavorably. According to the survey, 45 percent of Americans view Petraeus favorably, down 10 points from March 2011 and 16 points from his peak in September 2007.