On Meet The Press today, presidential candidate Sen. Chris Dodd debated Newt Gingrich about Iraq and foreign policy, the kind of bold move that most "top tier" candidates would be too risk-averse to do.

But the bold move only works if you follow it up with a bold performance.

Dodd didn't say anything that was abhorrent.

But he missed an opportunity to frontally challenge and decimate the neocon "World War III" foreign policy vision offered by Newt, and clearly contrast that fundamentally flawed vision with his own alternative.

For example, as Newt did earlier this month, he conflated the various problems of the Middle East into one Islamofascist enemy -- in particular, conflating Al Qaeda and Iran -- to justify the continuation of the Iraq war and expansion beyond its borders:

...we are in a worldwide war. And I’m going to use a word that seems to be unfashionable in Washington. We need to think about winning this worldwide war.

We need to understand that every week that goes by there are more young people recruited into al-Qaeda and into, into the various Iranian terrorist organizations...

Dodd was too subtle in response:

...exactly the point Newt is making I agree with here. The war on terror’s the legitimate war. We’re building an army of radicals and the generation coming along, as a result of the legitimacy of the effort engaged in Iraq.

The substance of Dodd's point is spot-on: the occupation of Iraq is helping strengthen Al Qaeda and similar terrorist operations.

But Dodd chose to blur distinctions by saying he agrees with Newt about "the war on terror." In fact, he doesn't.

All he agrees with is that we should fight terrorism. I'm sure they both agree that chocolate chip cookies are tasty fresh out of the oven too.

But Newt's "war on terror" is not the legitimate one. His lumps in Iran, Syria and the Palestinian governments with Al Qaeda, and sets the stage for a regional war.

Dodd sees the difference between terrorists that must be opposed and isolated, and distasteful but rational state governments where the possibility of successful diplomacy not only exists, but can help advance democratic reform and weaken terrorist threats.

It's a fundamental difference that should be clarified and brought into the open.

If Dodd squarely put his vision up against Newt's, showing the moral and pragmatic superiority of his vision, that could have turned heads and helped him break out of the second-tier.

Instead, by blurring distinctions, Dodd made some decent points that will soon be forgotten.