I think he was Bush's b*tch....and that is pretty pathetic.
2007-11-08 21:19:21
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
4⤋
Well I as a American, respected Mr. Blair. True I don't live
in the UK. He is young and intelligent.
He also had to deal with a great amount of pressure. We,
pulled the UK, into a nightmare called " Gulf-Nam ". He has
true grit. ( right stuff ). I, want a end to this madness. But the
troops are real hero's. Yours and ours.
Yes, Tony Blair was a great leader. Bless England.
2007-11-09 05:46:10
·
answer #2
·
answered by Bob Dylan ♪ 7
·
3⤊
0⤋
He was THE worst and should be tried for Treason. He's done more damage to this country than anyone else in History. Where was a modern day Guy Fawkes when we needed one?
Brown is no better, in fact let's try the whole Labour Government for Treason. He's thrown away what little hope we might of had left of controlling immigration from Africa and India, with the recent signing of the EU treaty without a referendum. He's a coward and a Traitor! Every Labour voter should hang their head in shame.
2007-11-09 05:27:50
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
2⤋
This country is in a worse state now than what is was after the 2nd World war, I'd say yes he was and Gordon really shouldn't have taken over
2007-11-09 09:56:13
·
answer #4
·
answered by Madness 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
He suffered from the illusion -- or is it delusion -- that he could actually influence George W. Bush. This was egotism, completely unwarranted in a man of Blair's intelligence. He thought that by aligning Britain with American foreign policy he could sway the latter significantly. Alas, it was the hope of the tail wagging the dog. He was trapped by Iraq, and an otherwise commendable new left direction was blemished by that disaster. So, was he bad? In national policies, no. In foreign policy, yes.
2007-11-09 05:43:04
·
answer #5
·
answered by Norm 3
·
2⤊
3⤋
Nope. Neither he was good to make changes to shape a better economy to the nation. He shouldn't have toe the line with US on the WMD in Iraq and if he could have been prudent he could have averted the war itself saving all those dead and the money spent, till date! Further, he could have pursued with Saddam Hussein more diplomatically through the European Union for the minimum change in Iraq to stop it becoming a rogue state, coupled with two way bilateral trade and development, benefiting Iraq and the world at large!
2007-11-09 05:37:11
·
answer #6
·
answered by anjana 6
·
1⤊
3⤋
I don't even think he was prime minister at all
2007-11-09 06:16:07
·
answer #7
·
answered by Bruce Forsyth 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
YES the rise and fall of tony blair....i can see the book coming: He got seduced by power and now is left with no legacy and a no respect
to Norm : national policies? people are dying of MRSA..thats people are DYING because our hospitals are dirty !!!
he really was crap, why do i have 3 thumbs down?
2007-11-09 05:45:45
·
answer #8
·
answered by openyoureyespeople! 5
·
0⤊
3⤋
Absolutely appalling.
Look at the state of our nation today.
The Big Crash is coming too. So much for having the most successful Chancellor living next door - an FFS now he is in charge!
We're mad in this country. We all need our heads testing for putting up with these fiends.
2007-11-09 05:20:54
·
answer #9
·
answered by Zed 6
·
6⤊
2⤋
I don't think "bad" comes close to describing Bliar (yes, i spelt it correctly).
His quote "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" just proves what a lying bastard he really is. Ten years later, the UK is softer on crime than ever.
2007-11-09 12:52:21
·
answer #10
·
answered by Paulie 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Very Bad. He spoke so much, said so little, was always right (in his opinion).
Oh for someone in leadership who is prepared to say "sorry folks I got it wrong" or "that was a mistake".
Not one of us can get things spot on every time. To own up when we are wrong shows that we really are just human and also that we are honest.
2007-11-09 05:36:41
·
answer #11
·
answered by COLIN and RO 1
·
2⤊
2⤋