As a British person, I can assure you that Blair is increasingly disliked by many British people.

What I would be most interested in is what ordinary Americans think of Blair?

well, i dont know very much about uk politics, i talk to some uk folks know and then to curb my daftness on it, but most of them dont like him. as for me myself, i just hope he did not get his country shafted.

He's just Bushes puppet.

I've heard it said that Blair isn't Bush's puppey, he's Jiminy Cricket to Bush's Pinnochio.

So who's holding Bush's strings?

The man's a hero, he put his political career on the line to support his ally in a war against a tyranical regeme. There isn't a negative thing in that last sentence. Bush's puppet, doubt it. Is anybody who supports Bush his puppet?

CP

I need to say that I admire Blair for sticking to his convictions, even when they are unpopular.

Blair is doing what he was elected to do--lead. Insult him all you like, but a man must have a motive beyond "licking Bush's boots" to embark upon a course of action that is frowned upon (or worse) by the British voters. He identified a threat and acted accordingly.

If the US House of Representatives is any indication of the American people's will, then I would have to say we are quite fond of the Prime Minister.

HR 1511

From this bill......



Approved on 25June2003 by a voice vote. HR 1511 had 290 co-sponsors in the House.

I have hold Blair in the highest regard because of his leadership. Both he and Bush have shown leadership skills that will go down in history as having been the envy of the world. Two men who took action they believed was necessary, and at great political risk to themselves.

I don't know much about Blair's social policies, although I understand them to be on the liberal side. I won't hold that against him though . Actually, that and the fact that he was so in tune with Clinton convinced me even more that the battle with Iraq had to be fought.

Does anyone here watch CSPAN at 9 p.m. on Sunday nights? They show about 30 minutes of the British Parliment in action.

It's the most entertaining 30 minutes on television.

I adore Tony Blair.

I like Tony Blair, too. I watch him in the House of Commons when it's televised on C-SPAN. The man is bright and can think on his feet. And I liked the way he took the time to speak rather candidly (considering it was filmed) to three or four British citizens and address their concerns about going to war with the US against Iraq.

He's not "managed" as much as his American buddy, at least not in his own country.

I don't think he's Bush's puppet but the Royal Family's puppet.

Blair is doing what he thinks is right in the way of Iraq.

I think he's a good debater in his "congress". He, like Bush, speaks his mind

The royal family has so little to do with world developments nowadays that many of the British question the reason for keeping them employed. They are a swell tourist attraction and do neat charity appearances, but they are largely irrelevant to world politics.

Blair wields the power, for now. I don't think he is Bush's puppet, but I do think he was "taken in" by bad intelligence and was more or less constrained to be the US's ally in this last war.

I'm lost, why is it that Bush is horrible for entering the war, while Blair is a hero, the same people who don't like Bush are complimenting Blair, I'm confused

CP

I have wondered that myself.

I think he's just a bit smarter in the way he operates politically. Indeed, he may just be a more intelligent man (although I don't mean that Bush is by any means stupid, as I said on the thread dealing with that).

Also, Blair appears to be more consistent in his aspirations for the war on terror - he was mentioning the Palestinian-Israeli and Zimbabwean conflicts in his speeches and writings several months before President Bush or anyone else on his team did, and he's kept on mentioning them.

He's certainly more open and forthright in the way he explains WHY he is doing the things he does. In comparison to Bush, Blair seems to have thought about things a lot more, where Bush seems to be reacting from his gut without really knowing why, which I think makes political liberals (like me, I admit) find it easier to admire Blair than Bush.

That's understandable. That kinda helps me understand that whole concept, but war is war, and if you hate the war, and hate Bush for starting it, it confuses me that you wouldn't hate the other world leader who believes in the war also.

CP

In regards to the average American I would first propose that the average American doesn't think much about Tony Blair at all. We tend to be self-aware and self-absorbed. Our bar/pub conversations tend to focus on things like sports and it is considered unfashionable to debate politics much publicly.

What I see as the American perception of Tony Blair, is that many people are grateful that he has declared himself to be so strongly and unequivocably (sp?) an American ally. Many Americans are impressed by his abilities in public speaking. I think few take much time to try to dissect his arguments in any manner.

I think it's a mistake to assume that all opponents of Iraq 2003 are motivated solely by pacificsm, Pat (although you may be referring to particular posters here who claimed to like Blair despite their proclaimed pacifism, in which case excuse me).

It is possible to have supported war in Afghanistan (or even Iraq 1991) yet not support Iraq 2003. This was the official French position, after all.

It is also possible that some opponents were motivated not by pacifism, but by the belief that MORE war is required - for instance, against entrenched terrorism (Palestinian/Israelis), anti-humanitarian regimes (Zimbabwe), or threats of WMD and undermining of Western security (N Korea) - and they didn't believe that the pro-Iraq 2003 camp would do anything about these areas except under duress. IMO, this viewpoint would be most likely to lead to a strong preference to Blair over Bush, for the reasons I mentioned before.

Conservpat:

First of all, Conservpat, I don't hate Bush and I don't love Tony Blair. But I'll tell you, there is something about Blair that is more believable to me than anything that Bush says. It has a lot to do with what Julian said.

Julian:


I never said that I prefer Blair's policies to those of Bush. It just makes a big difference when one politician comes across as erudite and eloquent and seems to really listen to the concerns of the citizenry. Also, Tony Blair seems more accessible to his countrymen while Bush is relatively insulated from the criticisms and the tough questions.

And for the record, I was for the war in Afghanistan; there was much better evidence of the link to terrorism, ergo, there was a "clear and present danger." Neither the British nor the Americans, in my view, were able to make a convincing argument to invade Iraq. I did not appreciate Tony Blair's position on the issues, but I did appreciate Britain's loyalty to the United States.

Please do not try to infer anything from what I think of Tony Blair; there is nothing more.

Since Blair is a socialist I'm inclined to hate him. But he has stuck by the US through the most unpopular times because of his resolve for the truth. For that I love him.

No, he's not, and we're all tired of that slur.

To say that Blair is Bush's puppet is most ridiculous. It's incredible to think that no one can stand as an individual anymore, and act on their own instincts. That is not to say that an individuals actions are not reprehensible or without repercussions. It's the job of the executive of government to act as an individual in executing the laws in the way they see most fit for the well being of those citizens who elected said individual. Yes, there may be popular opinions, and opinions of the minorities, but the power was vested in the executive for his sole execution. They must act with vision, and not cater to the capriciousness of the public. This leads me to the point that although an executive has the sole power to execute the laws, that doesn't mean he should ignore the public; however one must understand that the majority is not always looking very far into the future. Perhaps that is the trade off of the republican form of government, but as I see it a pure democracy is not very beneficial.

It's unfortunate that people feel that Blair is Bush's puppet, but the fact of the matter is that he is acting how he sees fit for the well being of his country. If that means sticking by your "child" and supporting their cause because you feel it's the right decision, then I don't understand the problem. Perhaps it would have been better to allow Saddam to dig up the parts for the nuclear program, so slickly buried in the front yard of a nuclear scientist. I do wonder what the chances would be for the IAEA finding said parts. How many other parts are buried, and who knows what else is buried? I would like to see more Anti-American/Anti-Western rhetoric because it's wrong to advocate the rule of the people. It's also wonderful that Mr. Saddam was offering $25k to the families of suicide bombers in Palestine. How do you deal with the mafia who pays people off? It seems best to tell them to stop, because arrest and prosecution is too violent an act.

Yes, on second thought, I do believe Blair is a puppet; independent intelligent choices aren't made anymore in this world. So how could it be possible he made such a choice himself?

I only watched a few minutes of Blair's address to both houses. He is a wonderful speaker and I get the impression he writes most of his own stuff. He also has that certain 'something' that only a few leaders have. Like Clinton had. And watching him now makes me feel the same way I do watching Clinton. All that talent, hope, and light thrown away on a stupid mistake that each of them chose to make. How sad.

Bush, otoh, isn't even in the same class. For him it's all about the camera angles, costumes, and swagger. Even in his flight suit and giving his best performance he can't compare to Blair or Clinton even at their lowest moments. When Bush and Blair get together it makes it all the more obvious. That's sad too.

Blairs speech reads almost like a formal decleration of surrender to me.

“11 September was not an isolated event, but a tragic prologue, Iraq another act, and many further struggles will be set upon this stage before it's over.”

That’s suggests that there will be more wars. Great.

“I know out there there's a guy getting on with his life, perfectly happily, minding his own business, saying to you, the political leaders of this country, "Why me? And why us? And why America?"
And the only answer is: "Because destiny put you in this place in history, in this moment in time, and the task is yours to do."
And our job, my nation that watched you grow, that you fought alongside and now fights alongside you, that takes enormous pride in our alliance and great affection in our common bond, our job is to be there with you.
You are not going to be alone. We will be with you in this fight for liberty.
We will be with you in this fight for liberty. And if our spirit is right and our courage firm, the world will be with us.”

Blair offers unconditional support for American policy in the future. Moif is right, we have surrendered totally to the Americans.

Who's we, you got a mouse in your pocket? Yoou have no right to speak for anyone here but yourself. Besides which you're also factually wrong. Blair's domestic policies are absolutely socialist in nature. There's no 'slur' in that, it's a political philosophy.

What, like subcontracting the running of prisons schools and hospitals to private companies? Like all but removing state support for udergraduate and graduate study, and transferring the onus onto the students themselves through loans?

How very socialist of him.

It seems that if your answer to the thread topic is that you think Tony Blair is a socialist, you not only understand British politics rather less well than he appears to understand American politics (based on this week's speech), you're also demonstrably wrong.

Some of the policies of his government are more socialist than others, and most of them are more socialist than anything that could be countenanced in US politics, whether or not they might be beneficial. However, if you think that that brackets him with the bulk of his own party's membership (of which I am one), let alone with Marxist-Leninism, Castro and the North Koreans, I humbly suggest you buy yourself a new political dictionary.

Socialism isn't always wrong any more than Capitalism is always right. It seems to me we run into trouble when we think any system is a panacea.

Tony Blair is a respectable man in a tough position, I think. I respect him for his loyalty to the United States, and yet that will probably be (in the case of the war on terrorism roadshow) what ultimately brings him defeat in Parliament.

Paladin Elspeth

But why does Tony Blair owe 'loyalty' to the United States?

Tony Blair doesn't owe loyalty to the United States. As it has been pointed out repeatedly by Conservpat in another thread (though I disagreed), the past doesn't matter, it is what is happening now that matters. I think it is gallant to stick by your friends during hard times, but I think the invasion of Iraq was patently wrong and tragic the way it was carried out.

Unfortunately the blind (George Dubya) led the blind (Tony Blair) into the ditch with this one. Now we've got a mess on our hands.

You can like somebody who's wrong-headed. I like Blair's intentions; his following Dubya so handily into the fray was ill-advised and disastrous.

No, the British don't owe Americans anything, to my mind. I just like their spirit.

Oh... I see.... Well, thats not quite the answer I was expecting...

Interesting perspective though...

I speak for everyone in my area of Georgia when i say that Tony Blair is the man of the year. He performed just action to liberate an oppressed people. I don't see why he is so unpopular with the Britains. England's participation in the war was key, not only for to help the war gain more acceptance internationally, but also it holds true that since England joined the war, others did follow suit in support, i.e. Spain and Australia. So what if the man had some faulty information? Is that entirely his fault? The truth is that Iraq needs transformation badly, and he is just an honorable man trying to bring just that to an oppressed nation. If iraqis are happy about the change, why isn't the rest of the world?

EVERYONE?! Stone Mountain Georgia is a suburb of Atlanta, with a HUGE Democratic population and lots of people that disagree with the war in Iraq. I highly doubt you can speak for EVERYONE, did you get their permission?

Edit to add: I think Blair is a good ally of America, but I doubt his intelligent sourses.

If Iraqi's were happy or even better off than they were before the war I just might agree with you. unfortunately that isn't the case.

I suppose thats why countless Iraqis cheered on The troops entering downtown Baghdad. And when i say area, i mean my political area, not only geographically. I know a man who was an active hippie back in the day, a complete pacifist who supports even this war. I meant to clarify who it was I spoke for, let me do so now. I spoke for the educated people east of Atlanta for about thirty miles. IMO, if you aren't educated, or are misled about a given topic, you aren't entitled to an opinion. Anyhow, the vast majority of people where I come from, even certain Democrats, aren' afraid of fighting for a good cause, which we believe this one was. It was an act of self defense, and a message to all other evil-doers out there that nobody messes with America, "although we did some fightin amongst ourselves", sang the Charlie Daniels Band, "you outsiders best leave us alone." You can say all you want about how our war was immoral, but I won't believe you until you can tell me how arming terrorist organizations that attacked our homeland is not an act against our country.

And who decides whether you are misled Brice?

Tony Blair is unpopular in Britain because he is incompetant, a serial liar and a monumental moral and political fraud. And thats putting it nicely!

I can quite imagine why Americans love Blair, since he offered unconditional support for America.

heh, how true is that. So are you saying that Brits usually dislike America? I'd give my left nut to save England, considering how much they have done for us since our birth as a nation, and throught the civil war too. If you don't like blair, who do you like then? Anti-American loons like Chiraq? I do not understand yalls logic whatsoever, but I am all ears

I must have missed the big Iraqi parades. I'd take a look at what's happened in Iraq since that day if I were you though.

Anyway, I respected Blair before he got involved in Iraq and drug his country into it against their will and I still think he's a wonderful speaker and in many ways a bright caring man. I think it's sad he threw his reputation away for whatever it was he was after in Iraq.

Still, given the choice now that it's done anyway, I'd trade the Brits in a heartbeat Bush for Blair. Not that any of them would jump at the offer.

No, rather we don't like Tony Blair. We are a soverign state, and although we value the special relationship with America, who are great friends, we have the right to disagree with their foreign policy at times, and many Brits before the war felt that Blair should have told Bush - we don't want this war.

Sorry pal...



Ummm, the Queen for one, not sure what your getting at there. The American people are reacting to Blair the same way the British people did in 1997, "what a great guy!". Sadly, Blair hasn't done anything on public services since and everything in Britain has got worse. Gradually the truth has dawned that when Blair seems passionate about something, its all a act, Blairs a lawyer, and thus knows how to pretend to be morally outraged.

Basically he's a phony.

Ah ah AH, Thomas!

You are in danger of straying from your own thread topic - you asked for the opinions of Americans on Tony Blair.

I'm kidding, of course - I've posted here myself.

But I think you're exaggerating somewhat -


That's your opinion. Blair's personal ratings in British opinion polls aren't good, but they are still somewhat better than those of Margaret Thatcher or John Major (the only modern British Prime Ministers that such poll data exists for). And the Labour party is still ahead in opinion polls here.

For the benefit of non-Brits, this is unheard-of in Britain since opinion polling began. Blair's personal standing was massively positive in polls up to the build-up to Gulf War II, and has steadily declined into disapproval since then.

And Labour's lead in opinion polls is also unprecedented - governments usually lag behind the opposition except at extreme moments of national crisis. Blair's Labour administration seems to be ahead in the polls except at extreme moments of national crisis! The psephologists are largely baffled as to why this should be the case.

British opinion was always sceptical about the case for war in Iraq this time around. Blair stuck his persuasion strategy to the imminent threat from WMD, unlike Bush, who always made more of the case for regime change. Now that it looks like that case was both fundamentally flawed (i.e. there was no imminent threat) and exaggerated/spun/actively lied about (depending on your point of view) Blair is personally in deep political trouble, most dangerously for him, within his own party.

That being the Labour party - the one Thomas opposes on principle, and the one that I am a member of.

:angry

This is a reply to Brice Eidson
What are you talking about,ENGLAND at war in Iraq?thats nonsence,you mean Britain,for god sake if you must comment get you geography right,England isn't independent and hasn't been since the Scottish take over of 1707,there is no such thing as an English anything these days just Britain,UK,for heavens sake Tony Blair and most of his Colonial government are SCOTTISH or Welsh with a few English born turncoats pushing the British, cause just like your Benedict Arnold.The British run there pony and trap show from a location in England,but it's certainly not run by us,if you must make a nonsence quote you should of said i'm so happy Scotland or Wales joined the war in Iraq,it makes as much sence,there are countless people in the British army from Wales or Ireland Scotland and England fighting for them,ie the British not their own country which Britain controls.
England as a country is not free to even blow it's nose without Britains say so,I should know I live here and we are NOT independent,Scottish Tony with Red Ken see to that so no i don't like Scottish Tony at all roll on English Devolution from Britain,a national parliament then like you a 1776 style independence.

Welcome cromwell -

You are quite off-topic. Care to debate the actual debate question?

Debate Question:

I actually consider blair a hero. Britan was there helping america during wars and while the UN isnt helping ( darn you un ) he was there

Well, Ive read the Lobbygate scandal by Greg Palast (I think it was published by the Guardian), and my opinion of Blair is lower. But I was never really a fan of him, especially because he went against what the people wanted. He was elected to speak for the people, and instead took his country in the wrong direction.

I want to know if any of the Brits have read the article, and what they think about it.

Brice, please don't start with the Chirac rethoric, please!

As a Frenchman, am I entitled to voice my opinion?

Yes you are. And please tell Dominque De Vellepin I'm a big fan. I have a pretty big crush on him.

Has anyone read the recent allegations about Straw warning Blair not to get involved in the war? I've always thought Straw was a weasel...this just seals it.
SKYNEWS

Thanks Danya. I like De Villepin myself : he's a brilliant diplomat and an excellent essayist on poetry too. I think we're lucky to have him as our representative abroad.

Well, here's my piece about Tony Blair now. In my opinion, Tony Blair has shown a great deal of courage and a capacity for sticking to his vision of the world. Most French people (including me) respect his decisions, even though we strongly disapprove at the same time!

He's no hero to me, but I understand that he could be to some of you. I don't know what the British feeling is, but I remember that the opinion was not all in favor of the war. We'll see if the Iraq invasion serves his political interests or not.

I have a tremendous amount of respect for Tony Blair. Both during the Clinton administration and now. He is a true Ally of the US and the American people.


In working together with Pres. Bush and involving the UK in the war with Iraq he truly believed that it was the right thing to do. Courage, is what comes to mind when I think of Tony Blair.

He had 2 clear choices:

1. To side with France, Germany, Russia and China and thus save his political standing AND career at home and abroad. Siding with the 4 would save his country the lives of it's soldiers and it's country's dollars. Siding with the 4 would have been the popular move. His citizenry would love him, he wouldn't face endless days of incrimination or the anger of the major EU players. It would also clearly state that Tony Blair believed Saddam NOT to be a threat.

2. To throw all ambition, popularity, a possible career aside in favor of acknowledging that Saddam was INDEED the biggest WMD in the ME and if left unchecked would continue to pursue his aggression in the ME, murder of his people and present his regime as a continued enemy of the west and to peace.

In my opinion, by choosing 2 he had all to lose both personally and professionally while all to gain for the future of his country and the world.