2006-07-19 10:54:06 · 25 answers · asked by Jackie P 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Same
2006-07-19 14:55:41 · answer #1 · answered by CottonPatch 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Better at what?
Two completely different things you are taking about here. One is a president and the other a prime minister.
Perhaps you should do some research into what the difference between those two things are.
Plus ask yourself this, where do you live?
Is it in the UK?
Or in America?
Or somewhere else?
Its always going to be a biased decision you make cause you cannot compare the two as you cant live in both places at the same time.
Presumably you are asking the question based basically on the whole was on Iraq, Saddam Hussein and all that.
Again it is not comparable because both the UK and America, and pretty much every other major country in the world has some sort of vested interest in what happens in Iraq.
And with America being the biggest nation they are always going to have the biggest say, or so they would like the rest of the world to believe.
Anyway, all I am saying is you can not compare the tro justifiably without knowing everything they have done for their own countries and what they have done for the rest of the world.
Why base an opinion on only a small part of the truth.
2006-07-19 18:08:51 · answer #2 · answered by Alistair B 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Blair
2006-07-19 17:58:22 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, apparently, Blair does a nice line in sweaters and Bush isn't going to take any **** from Syria! Fill you with any confidence? Yo, Blair!
2006-07-19 18:27:39 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It depends on "what purpose" !
Bush is better, to watch, if there are no better comedy shows on the other channel !
Blair is better, if you want to watch a puppet-on-a-string show.
Bush is worse, to see, if you just had lots to drink and topped it with some dodgy curry !
on the other hand, Blair is ...........
2006-07-20 11:16:33 · answer #5 · answered by Morbeous 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Come on?! Bush! Blair is just a monkey boy.
2006-07-19 17:58:49 · answer #6 · answered by carolinagrl 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
At least Blair can win an election without any nasy allegations being made as a result.
2006-07-19 18:00:01 · answer #7 · answered by sarah c 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Blair. At least he doesn't look like the missing link.
2006-07-19 17:57:50 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Blair, just cause he's not Bush
2006-07-19 17:57:22 · answer #9 · answered by michelle112785 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think Blair s the lesser of the 2 evils, but that's mainly becasue Blair is less of a war mongerer, but politicians are politicians.Sad but true
2006-07-19 17:58:06 · answer #10 · answered by Kalahari_Surfer 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Blair. because Bush is the devil incarnate.
2006-07-19 17:58:49 · answer #11 · answered by fae 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋