I read a good editorial a while ago (from the New York Times, I believe) about how Bush and Blair should switch roles. Blair should be the "talk to the world guy" and Bush should be the "occassionally opens his mouth guy."
Why? Because Blair is much smarter than Bush, and actually sounds visionary, whereas Bush stutters and avoids questions repeats the same thing over and over in several different ways. There would probably be much more support for the war in Iraq if it appeared as if it were a British-led initiative with the U.S. just acting as a hired goon rather than the current situation, which is the reverse.
Vibecrewangel 
Threaded Mode
