2006-08-21 03:35:43 · 39 answers · asked by Bosco 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
George W.ake the hell up you *** Bush
Ah, TexasGal, typial conservative. You're unameriacn if you don't support a man who is anything but a patriot. If he is a patriot like he says, why is he more concerernd with foreign affairs, hmm?
2006-08-21 03:43:26 · answer #1 · answered by FootballFan1012 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Unless you actually follow British politics, you don't really have any idea how "good" or "bad" Tony Blair is. I'm not defending him, per se, but I'm defending him from people who judge him - and let's not forget that all major decisions, including the war in Iraq, had to get through Parliament - for his "following" of Bush. Blair is better than the Tories, even now, and he's better than any of the other nothing parties that have tried to take control of the UK.
On the other hand, given the completely stupid voting system in the US, Bush could probably stay in until Doomsday, despite what over 50% of voters actually think. For this reason, you've probably gotta pick him.
2006-08-21 03:58:02 · answer #2 · answered by skapunkplaything 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Depending on perspective.
My view is that Tony Blair is worse, simply for the fact he is a supposedly intelligent man yet still follows US-dictated foreign policy so blindly, despite the fact a complete retard currently resides in the White House.
2006-08-21 03:42:59 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Bush, no doubt. Iraq never should have been a country in the first place. It was drawn that way in 1921 by none other than Winston Churchill, who callously imposed a king on three distinct ethnic groups.
Since this was England's mistake in the first place, I don't hold Blair in that much contempt for thinking that Britain should be involved in trying to rectify the situation. His continued blind support of Bush's failed policy is inexcusable, but I don't think his initial motivation was as nefarious as Dubya's.
2006-08-21 04:39:38 · answer #4 · answered by daryl_not_daryl 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I have to say that the dope-smoking, alcoholic, C student, isn't even smart enough to know you have to chew your food before you attempt to swallow it, tripping over his own feet George aka dubja is definitely horrible but isn't the bloke taking advice on how to run a country from this idiot worse?
My answer would be Tony Rotten Bliar (the man never knows when to stop lying!).
2006-08-21 03:48:57 · answer #5 · answered by Jenny C 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No.one Bush and no two Tony Blair who fallow him blindly so Tony Blair who don't his brain.
2006-08-21 03:44:41 · answer #6 · answered by lucky s 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush by far. I think Tony Blair does have some good ideas when it comes to other issues besides the war in Iraq. I think when it comes to the environment he's MUCH farther ahead in his thinking than W.
2006-08-21 03:42:16 · answer #7 · answered by carpediem 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Bush. For the record don't think Tony is devoid of brain by any stretch of the imagination. Not saying that makes him a good PM, just don't think he's stupid.
2006-08-21 03:52:05 · answer #8 · answered by Lola 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Can't choose. Probably Blair. Bush has money and needs nothing. Blair is a pauper compared so bows in front of him. Sleaze is Blairs favourite pastime, and freebie flights and holidays.
2006-08-21 03:44:01 · answer #9 · answered by deadly 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
That's a $79 000 000 000 question which the American public will shortly be answering when their economy collapses. The only president with an MBA. What a joke.
2006-08-21 03:46:15 · answer #10 · answered by charlie r 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋