Howard's opportunism over Iraq was the most unfortunate aspect of his leadership. Conservative commentators rightly launched strong attacks on Michael Howard's opportunism:
> Quoting Australian Prime Minister John Howard – who said that "This is no time to be an 80 per cent ally” – Mark Steyn wrote that the White House will have had serious doubts about the reliability of Michael Howard as an ally in the war on terror.
> Gerard Baker, US Editor of The Times, accused Michael Howard of trading on anti-Bush sentiment within Britain to “shore up his own party’s flagging prospects”. Mr Baker wrote: “The truth is the Tories have been opportunists over Iraq. They backed the war and lauded the efforts of British and American troops when it was going well, but since then have exploited every opportunity to undermine Bush’s and Blair’s defence of the war.”
> Accusing the Tory leader of “cheap shots”, Charles Moore wrote: “As with his wrong-footed reaction to the Hutton report, Mr Howard is being frivolous. He writes that the Government has been "making policy on the hoof". Perhaps, but one hears the weary clip-clop of his own party as it does the same”.
The war on terror remains the defining issue of our time. Some people choose to live in the world of 9/11 - others shut their eyes and pose behind institutions-of-convenience like the UN.
Unfortunately there are at least four opponents of the Iraq campaign standing for the Tory leadership - Ken Clarke, Alan Duncan, Andrew Lansley and Sir Malcolm Rifkind. They fail to understand that our enemy isn't just terrorist networks - but also the rogue nations that feed and harbour them. These four Tories may be excellent in many ways but their weak positions in the war on terror should disqualify them from leading the Conservative Party - the party of Churchill, Thatcher and the once-and-future party of homeland security.
Recent Comments