President Bush sold himself as the "anti-Clinton". With the invasion of Iraq, the two are more alike then he knows.
In a recent interview with President Clinton, CBS anchor Dan Rather asked the former head of state why he risked everything to have an inappropriate relationship with a White House intern. Why would he provide his political enemies with what turns out to be almost enough legal ammunition to impeach him from office? His answer? “Because I could.”
During the 2000 campaign, President Bush sold himself as the "anti-Clinton". Whether he realizes it or not, over the past four years Dubya has turned out to be much more like President Clinton then he portrayed, especially when it comes to abusing power. If President Bush was watching the interview, I hope he paid very close attention to what President Clinton said. I say this not out of any concern for protecting President Bush from his political enemies. He is good enough (as is Mr. Rove) to do that on his own. No, I think he ought to take note of Mr. Clinton’s answer because of the inevitable question he will face when he finally leaves office – why did we invade iraq?
Of all the reasons given by the Bush Administration for killing tens of thousands of people, sending over a hundred thousand Americans to occupy Iraq, and spending hundreds of billions of dollars, none have been even close to the truth. Weapons of mass destruction, bringing democracy to the Middle East, freeing the Iraqi people from a horrible dictator, all of these explanations ring hollow in the eyes of the world. No my fellow Americans, the Bush Administration never truthfully explained why we invaded Iraq. That was done by Senator Kerry (then Presidential candidate Kerry) in an interview with Chris Matthews. “Why did we invade Iraq?” Matthews asked. “Because we could.” said Kerry. Ironic eh?
I ask you now: what kind of a reason to start a war is “Because we could”?