In his typically halting search for encomiums to heap upon the late George Tenet yesterday, President Bush struggled mightily and produced a "resolute," followed by three incantations of the word "strong." Which is fine, I suppose, but also revealing in a way. You'll note that the soon-to-be-former DCI wasn't, say, "effective." And he certainly wasn't (heaven forfend!) "smart."

Which brings me to my point: Why is it that so many of the Churchill-worshipers in the GOP laud the firm and resolute aspects of the Last Lion's character, but largely ignore his equally admirable qualities of discernment and intellectual rigor? After all, Neville Chamberlain was pretty damned firm and resolute about appeasing Hitler. In fact, like Mr. Bush in Iraq, he pursued his feckless vision with such consistency and vigor that one might suspect he was primarily interested in testing the veracity of that old literary conceit about a fool persisting in his folly to become wise. No, Mr. Chamberlain's problem wasn't that he was insufficiently resolute. It was that he was wrong. While Churchill, as events would soon (and tragically) demonstrate, was dead right. So why not admire the perspicacity as well as the cojones? And maybe, just maybe, consider hiring a foreign policy team with its share of both?

Not likely, I know. But isn't it pretty to think so?

NOTE: If you only saw or read an edited version of President Bush's remarks, you may find my assessment ("typically halting") a bit harsh. Trust me. It's not.

--------