Sometimes Andrew Sullivan is just downright adorable. Watching him maintain his childlike innocence about war, tax cuts, and plain bigotry while being a gay Catholic conservative is pretty amusing. Today he pondered why Pres. Bush doesn’t just send former Pres. Clinton over to Iraq to fix things up.

So here’s a thought: why not send Bill Clinton? For some reason that eludes my own judgment, Clinton has a great deal of cachet in the Middle East, and could defuse the anti-Bush and thereby anti-American obstacles to success. He was, by all accounts, superb at the Doha/Brookings/Saban summit in 2003. He would bring the Democratic party into a much more constructive role in trying to bring about a serious step forward for Iraq, and help unite the country at home. If Bush were to ask him, it would send a very powerful message of seriousness to the Middle East, put more of America’s prestige and effort behind the Iraq project, at exactly the time some in the country are doubting our fortitude.

Ignoring for the moment that the problems in Iraq are tremendously complex and date back through decades if not centuries of sectarian strife, there’s one simple reason why Bush won’t ask Clinton to help. Because it MIGHT help the Democrats. And in this administration, every decision, no matter how important to our national security and the safety of the world is made with only one factor in mind: politics.

Karl Rove: Keeping you unsafe and afraid since 2001.