I don't understand the Tories. Are they simply trying to be different than Blair?
If Bill Clinton had taken strong action against Iraq in the mid-90s, I would have supported it. However, his weak responses to attacks on the WTC, the Cole, etc have simply confirmed that he didn't have a vision - he simply reacted to public opinion.
Bush is a leader with vision. Blair and Howard at least recognize this, and they may have vision themselves (but may lack the means that America has).
I think the Tories need to realize that if you have a good leader, he doesn't have to be defeated. Working with Blair will be to their benefit in the long run.
<< I don't understand the Tories. Are they simply trying to be different than Blair? >>
It's way worse than that.
Remember it is the bloody Tories who created most of the world's problems and that -- despite that the execrable Blair lacks the courage to do anything about his awful [Domestic] inheritance -- and is in any case organically/ideologically inclined to continue the surrender of once-great-Britain's sovereignty and to thus further Judeo-Christian/Western Civilization's demise -- Blair but took over from where the craven 'Conservatives' left off.
<< .... one reason the [World] is in the mess it’s in is that .... fag-end British imperialism was too fainthearted to inculcate British ‘nation-building’ values .... but still arrogant enough to complicate .... politics, impose weak outside emirs as their kings, elevate minority groups into the ruling class — and then scram. It’s no coincidence that the region of the world that causes the most trouble for the rest is the one the Western imperialists stayed in just long enough to screw up but not long enough to do any good in. >>
First the world -- and now the home islands!
The Tories are the equivalent of our Democrat Party under Howard's leadership. The war is unpopular in Britian. Initially supportive, Tories saw a chance to capitalize on bad news and ran with it at the cost of a unified nation during war. Sound familiar? Hence my disgust of Howard's Tories. When they decide to return to Thatcher or Churchill, I'll take note. Until then Blair is the only one that seems to have an understanding of the necessity of this war in a position to make a difference, and the courage to remain committed even against public opposition, coming elections, pressure by those in his own party, opposition of Howard and the rags united agaist him.
And the Tories promised (in a speech by Iain Duncan Smith when he was still in charge) they would support Blair on the war and where ever he was in the right. "If people want me to play political games with this," he said, "I say I'm sorry I will not do it. I will not do it because (the British people's) interests matter more than the short-term interests of any single political party."
But then the Duncan Smith did start playing political games. Watching him on C-SPAN you could hardly tell him apart from Tom Daschle but for the accent:
Tories turn on leader (Iain Duncan Smith Wavers On Iraq)
Lawmakers Attack Blair Over Iraq Warning [Stop sniping, Iain Duncan Smith!]
And many more, under both Duncan Smith and Howard. So the Tories aren't only losers, they're liars and oath breakers.