Thank you clarkent.

I personally think the Bush administration framed this as a "war" so they could use it for purposes other than fighting terrorism (i.e. eliminating constitutional rights, Patriot Act, Homeland Security, etc. with all of that being a giant leap toward fascism). At the time all of this started they had tremendous public support from a nation fearful of more attacks. I agreed with what Wesley Clark and a few others said at the time that it should have been handled as a police action not a military one.

The concept of this being a "war" is entrenched with the American public. No matter how false the original premise was or how big a sham it was to start with it is for the time being an important issue to voters. The simplistic "raise your hands" question was a trick question and we all know that. I think Clinton, Obama, Dodd, and Richardson did the right thing by raising their hand and I think the others took a political risk by not doing so. The public wants to be assured that the next president will be against terrorism and will protect national security. A new administration can change the focus and direction of how best to go about doing so but they will never get that opportunity if they get bogged down in a public debate saying they are "against the war on terror" or they do not believe there is a "war on terror".

During the 1968 presidential campaign Gov. George Romney (Mitt Romney's father) said what he was really thinking when he made his famous statement that he had been "brainwashed" about Vietnam and it was "the most tragic foreign policy mistake in the nation's history." Even though he was correct that quickly ended his campaign for president.