This morning I saw on CBS one of those oft-repeated poll questions - "who do you think would be tougher in the war on terror" - and I wondered, for the first time, why that should the determining factor in picking the next president. Given that no candidate has a chance of achieving office unless he's committed to fighting the good fight against bin Laden and company, it's just as important to ask which candidate will
- be most effective in that fight,
- make fewer mistakes,
- recognize military and political realities,
- convince and compel allies, and
- best utilize assets and resources?
Seriously, folks - anybody can be tough. But given the litany of errors made by the Bush administration in prosecuting this war, shouldn't our major criterion be one based on effectiveness?
Who will be smarter in the war on terror?
This is what the pollsters should ask. This is what the voters should ask.