Hmm. The mark of a leader is surely making good decisions. Including the decision not to do anything, a highly highly under-rated skill imho. That decision may be easy, it may be a real bitch. In bush's case I'm not even convinced he was that tough. It's easy to make a hard decision when you're stupid. If he'd have shown real resilience it would have been in thinking for himself and NOT following the cynical agenda of his advisors. Likewise standing in rubble isn't tough, it's expedient. He was quick to stand in new york rubble, slooooow to stand in New Orleans rubble because it served him no purpose. Invading a country you've reduced to a third world status definitely isn't tough, that's just bullying, and as we all know bullies aren't tough, they're scared. As for Blair, I'm inclined to agree with you, he baulked at a lot of decisions and he never dared take on Brown; but then I don't think he ever really knew what he was doing full stop frankly. He was good with the speeches, he was good with the press, he could charm the voters, but apart from hand-waving desires for reform/change/progress/other synonyms to do with making stuff different than it was in 1997 (apparently), he hadn't the foggiest what or where that change/progress should go. More handwaving, education, nhs, third way [pause...look profound, furrow brow furrow brow]. Competition, choice, accountability (unless your bribing arabs/party funders) [breathe deeply, act statesmanlike] etc etc, you get my point....I'll shut up before I actually start winding myself up. As for diplomacy I draw attention to this independent cover...that's not senisble diplomacy, and it sure as hell ain't the classic british 'balance-of-power' strategy.