Reply #26: First off, I don't think Clark does believe that

[Jai4WKC08]

Or Kerry either.

Oh, Clark recognizes the economic component to be sure. And he has often complained that the Bushies won't tell us, honestly, why we went to war in Iraq. But I think he thinks the real reason was political. Granting that you can't divorce Republican politics with accumulating wealth, but indirectly in this case. Defeating al Qaeda and islamic terrorists was too hard. Taking out a state, with a standing army far inferior to ours, was much easier.

Secondly, it's not a matter of winning "on the Iraq issue" per se. Iraq is merely a shining example of how incompetent BushCo is on national defense in general. They took us to a war based on bad and likely manipulated intelligence, they claimed "mission accomplished" when it wasn't even close, they were caught with their pants down when the Iraqi people didn't react the way they expected them to, their plans there now are driven totally by domestic partisan political considerations, they dropped the ball in Afghanistan, they diverted resources needed to fight al Qaeda to take out a two-bit dictator that had no immediate capability to hurt us, and they have wrecked the very international relationships we NEED to fight terrorism effectively.

That's what they've done wrong, but Kerry needs to show that he can do it right. So the larger issue, bigger than Iraq, is who can defend America against the REAL threats to our safety.

If you think terrorism is a "disembodied fear" you haven't looked at the NYC skyline recently. And if you think voters can be convinced that terrorism isn't a threat to American physical safety and economic well-being, every bit as much as fascist imperialism in 1941, you are seriously out of touch with public opinion.