So your saying if you can’t have a decent, honest, well-spoken politician in office, its atleast better to have one who can pretend to be decent, honest, and well-spoken?? If that’s what you are saying, than i will have to disagree. I’d rather know if my leader was a scumbucket, than be duped by his demeanor…
But i do agree, that blair is better at that sort of thing than bush…
Yeah - Blair’s 40+ minute speech in Congress was really good. It’s just that he also has more experience fielding tough questions in those interesteing Q/A sessions on C-Span where members question his actions, request an opinion, and ask other related things.
But don’t you see, you aren’t being duped, or decieved, because you have the intellegence to know that Blair is probably not as decent as he tries to sound. And there is a risk that people will be decieved, but atleast in office the better politician can get more done, can improve foriegn relations as opposed to Bush’s complete disregard for other countries. Blair gives his speaches not as an ******* talking about evildoers, but as someone who has truely thought about the situation and come to a decision that they truely believe in. There is no question that I would prefer an honest politician, but between Bush and Blair… I’d definatly choose Blair.
As for that thing about burning down the White House, I can’t believe Blair apologized! The British army in Canada only did that because a) The United States invaded what is now Canada, and b) because the United States burned down the parliament buldings in York (now Toronto). Bush should have apologized to Canada/Britain if anyone was going to apologize!