Can Blair be a restraining influence on Bush?

UK Prime Minister Tony Blair has been holding talks at the White House with President George W Bush, in what has been characterised as a council of war on Iraq.

After the meeting the pair were united in insisting that Baghdad was failing to disarm and that strong action was needed to address the situation.

But subtle differences over diplomatic tactics and the extent of the threat that Saddam Hussein poses have begun to emerge, with Mr Blair making clear his preference for a new round of discussions at the United Nations.

Ahead of the talks leading Democratic Senator Tom Daschle said Mr Blair should be a restraining influence on Mr Bush.

Can Tony Blair be a moderating influence on President Bush?

We'll be discussing Iraq and the diplomatic situation surrounding the current crisis in our phone-in programme this Sunday. If you'd like to take part, please include your phone number with your comments (it will not be published online). To listen to the programme come back to this webpage or tune in to BBC World Service Radio at 1400GMT on Sunday, 2 February.

Thank you for comments; this debate is now closed. A selection of your e-mails is published below.

---

Blair a restraining influence on Bush? You've got to be kidding! Blair is revelling in all this, playing his doting presidential puppy role. It's pathetic. He's an embarrassment to this country, he really is.
Rob, UK

You get the impression that the leaders of Germany & France, especially Germany, are unable to back the US because of their own domestic problems and pressures. Mr Blair seems to be one of the few leaders in the World who truly knows what is going on with Iraq, and it is that point of view we must all listen to.
David, Germany (ex-UK)

If Blair were to publicly disagree with Bush, Americans would listen.

Jim, USA

I can't claim to know what goes on between Bush and Blair but I can say this: Blair is probably more respected in the US than he is at home, at least if you believe CNN. So any list of world leaders who could influence Bush would have to be headed by Blair because if he were to publicly disagree with Bush, Americans would listen. Over here, Schroeder's opposition to US policy is seen as nothing more than a way for him to cash in on growing anti-US sentiment and to focus attention away from his failing economy. France is perceived to be a nation that will take any stance so long as it is contrary to that of the US.
Jim, USA

Bush and Blair want to deal with the threat that they can see, which is Iraq. I believe that if Saddam could send chemical weapons to the US or UK he would do so. Europe was overrun by Hitler and the US stood by us. They liberated both France and Germany with enormous loss of life. This is in all our interests. Both countries should be supporting the US in its efforts to deal with Iraq once and for all.

I am now 22 and this has been dragging on for over half of my life... Let's end this one way or another. The preferred method is through the UN but if we need to go alone we should!!! I am pleased that we have more public support from the rest of Europe. They have been silent to long..
Martin Barringer, Bournemouth, UK

Can Blair restrain Bush? Why would he want to?

Kerry, Columbia, USA

Can Blair restrain Bush? Why would he want to? He believes, as Bush does, that Iraq needs new leadership and he knows infinitely more about the situation than the sadly misinformed and misguided people who oppose military action. For God's sake, trust your prime minister!
Kerry, Columbia, Missouri USA

I can't believe it. North Korea and Iraq are violating treaties and international law yet it's American imperialism that is the cause of this aggression and not their own law breaking? The "no-war" types are arguing that countries should not be punished for violating nuclear treaties and for refusing to give up chemical weapons and that it is arrogant of the world to expect them to abide by international law!

Follow your logic. America is arrogant for demanding that Iraq disarm and when it refuses to do so even though its agreed to and was ordered to by the U.N. Also since the U.N. has also demanded that Iraq disarm you're also against the U.N. enforcing international law. So you're really against both America intervening but also against the U.N. having any power.

So following that logic you're for dictators who should be able to do whatever they want and the U.S. or the world should not be able to intervene. Plus since you seem adamant about letting Iraq keep any and all weapons you're not really for disarmament but proliferation. Your words might say peace but the implication and the consequences speak exactly the opposite.
Voice of Reason, USA

Taking in to context both historic and personal arguments, I can't imagine which European leader is better suited, than Mr. Blair, to the task of bringing together America and Europe for the greater good of world stability. He's done a great job since September 11th and even right back to the Kosovo conflict. Hopefully British voters will ensure he's able to continue...
Nicholas, Copenhagen, Denmark

It seems as if Blair is the only person, outside of the US, who Bush will listen to.

Karl B. Petersen, Denmark

It seems as if Blair is the only person, outside of the US, who Bush will listen to. Bush is listening. But is it wise to let these two countries lead an attack on Iraq? I think not. I don't see an attack on Iraq as reasonable, there are far too many hidden agendas. But if, and when, the attack happens anyway, let a more open-minded country take the lead. US President George Bush and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair have far too much at stake in this indecent matter. Let the UN let by Kofi Annan take charge of the upcoming war, then we can be assured of a somewhat "fair" treatment of the citizens of Iraq who we should also consider. Kofi Annan - give Saddam an ultimatum to either have stationed UN troops in the Country or a resignation from Saddam as the head of Iraq. War should not even have to be a last resort. But sometimes it is necessary, and this war should be led by UN.
Karl B. Petersen, Svendborg, Denmark

I for one am very proud of the stance that the UK government as embodied by Tony Blair (though I am sure the opposition parties would take the same line) is taking. It is courageous, practical and sensitive as you would expect from a British person. I understand the need to be seen to be supporting and supportive of the US position without necessarily voicing differences so as to placate public opinion at home. It shows that Tony Blair is confident and effective. It is easy to criticise when you do not have to take the hard decisions you have been elected to do so - I do not believe he takes these decisions lightly nor for such trivial reasons as domestic opinion. Bravo Mr Blair!
Brian, Lyon, France

Where is the evidence that Blair has any "influence" in Washington? He supposedly advised Bush to go through the UN. The more cynical interpretation of this may be that going through the UN would enable the US (& Britain) to gain the time needed to build up their forces.
Simon Porch, London, UK

It seems that Prime Minister Blair is the caddy in this entire situation.

Glen Ramnarine, Marabella,

There are constant claims being made by the United States and Great Britain that they possess great amounts of evidence that Iraq possess numerous quantities of weapons of mass destruction. My first question is that will the general population of the world ever see this evidence before war is declared ? My second question is are the elected world leaders listening to the views of their society who to date all seem to be against war or are they listening to their leader George Bush Jr. ?

And thirdly on a somewhat trivial note will George Bush Jr. ever visit London to discuss this situation ? It seems that Prime Minister Blair is the caddy in this entire situation.
Glen Ramnarine, Marabella, Trinidad and Tobago, W.I.

For most of the leaders of poor countries, the choice is simple. Support the U.S and guarantee continuing/New AID or go against them and risk future civil unrest at home because the money for your projects has dried out. Those not in need of help from U.S can actually let their own conscience guide them. Unfortunately there are very few countries in the world right now who don't need the US. I am sure you can have 100+ leaders supporting you if you want to.
Mbaki Mutahaba, Tanzania

The sad fact that the Hungarian PM signed that letter does not mean that the Hungarian population supports that unjust, illegal war. According to the latest polls, 83% of the population is against this war, even if there was a second UN resolution. Our so-called "representative democracies" do not represent the people any more. They represent the greed and arrogance of the self-interested political elite. I am a Hungarian but I am not with my government. I am with the Germans and the French. Hope they will not give in to the American bully.
Akos Horvath, Budapest, Hungary

Blair speaks very well, and the people of the USA take him very seriously.

Peter Vevang, Minneapolis, USA

I recently changed my position on war, I support it now, reluctantly. The reason I am reluctant is because Bush has a tendency to do and say things that are illogical and counterproductive; it took him 6 months to lay out a mediocre case that was enough to convince me that a war with Iraq meets a minimum threshold of danger, and I am not entirely certain if he is just blabbering or he is really saying something important. He can't pronounce oxygen or nuclear right, and mangles just about every other aspect of the English language.

He clearly speaks 'American' though, which is one reason he is popular. But, his inability to speak carries over to his inability to articulate policy. Blair speaks very well, and the people of the USA take him very seriously. If Blair says no, and Bush goes ahead over his objection, Bush knows it would be a public relations disaster for him. To a certain degree, Bush has to follow Blair, he doesn't have a choice, if he strays too far he will get crucified by public opinion. This begs the question, who is the real poodle in this relationship? I say its Bush.
Peter Vevang, Minneapolis, USA

Bush said himself that he is not going to make any definite decisions until he speaks to Blair. Britain stands as an equal to the US, not a puppet. Only the depressed British public sees themselves that way, and it is getting very old. Maybe a nice long holiday abroad would help them see what I and millions of people see on just how influential and powerful Britain really is.
David Eubanks, USA-British

Senator Daschle has been wrong, dead wrong, on this issue all along. He's been outvoted at every turn. The Democrats risk utter political ruin over Iraq. Daschle is so discredited among his own party they chose some nondescript Governor to present the Democrat's response to the State of the Union. Tony Blair will listen to his own best instincts on this matter (which have been brilliant and bold so far), not to some leftwing handwringer reduced to the sidelines.
Peter C. Kohler, Washington DC USA

It's funny how the Americans pay more creed to PM Blair than the British do.

Justin Cunningham, USA

The British seem to deride the friendship between the US and the UK, but I think it is precisely the strength of that alliance which has held us so closely for at least the last century that enables PM Blair to influence American public opinion and the American government. It's funny how the Americans pay more creed to PM Blair than the British do. I've never heard any Americans call him a "poodle."
Justin Cunningham, Santa Barbara, CA

Less than 4% of world oil is being supplied out of Iraq. If this conflict was about Iraqi oil for US oil companies, then the United States would¿ve taken the oil from Iraq (and Kuwait for that matter) during the first Gulf War. As Saddam races to possess nukes, it is the French and Germans who care about keeping their precious oil and technical contracts with him.

Fortunately for the world, the United Sates does not share this callous view. Never forget that the reason the American people so overwhelmingly support removing Saddam is a direct result of the murderous attack on Sept 11. Removal of Saddam gives notice to North Korea, Iran, and others that America has a very deadly view toward any nation that would create or supply weapons of mass destruction. If you peace marchers think that the United States is unrestrained now, you have seen nothing compared to the wrath America will dispense if a nuke detonates on our soil. The world should support all efforts at keeping that dark day from ever happening, including support in jettisoning Saddam.
Daniel Publicover, San Francisco, USA

Mr. Blair is not bending to Mr Bush's views, but standing up for his own.

Jim, USA

Opposite of what some US and European media portray, Mr. Blair is not bending to Mr Bush¿s views, but standing up for his own. Saddam's regime is a threat to the world, and Blair knows this. I think he is doing a great job, he is sticking up for what he believes to be right and not bending to anti-war pressure that would boost his popularity at home. This kind of moral courage is something that Mr Schroder in Germany would know nothing about, considering he based his whole re-election campaign on playing off his populations fear of war. And when people say the US and others are going in to Iraq just for economic gains they tend to overlook the fact that France wants to keep everyone out of Iraq for the main purpose of getting oil contracts themselves once UN sanctions are lifted. .
Jim, Jacksonville Fl, USA

No, quite contrary to accepted opinion, Bush is leading Blair to adopt a deservedly strong stance against Iraq and eventually erstwhile "ally" Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran and Arafat's PA.
Josh Corey, New York, NY and USA

Blair has very little influence on Bush. Bush will go the UN root simply because to go it alone would expose the US to even more world public hate. If France, Russia and China can be convinced not to use their veto and the security council can produce a fudge motion of mild support for the US invasion, that will be enough for Bush to see the exercise as a huge success. Bush will go to war come what may. Even without the UK bush will go to war. This could be the end of NATO as we know it.
Peter Jones, London, UK

Mr. Blair has an enormous amount of influence on the United States. It was very pleasant to see the opinion polls follow Mr. Blair's position so closely, but too, may I add, this BBC site is one of the most popular sites for Americans. BBC News is shown on a number of stations all over the United States, and is well received. When I realized Mr. Blair's comments were followed by the opinion polls, I was astounded. Delighted, but astounded.
Joel E. Wischkaemper, Los Angeles, USA

There are people out their who are more evil than Bush.

Joe Nemeth, Ohio

I find it disgusting that Europeans and some liberal Americans would put their hatred of Bush and America before the well being of Iraqi citizens. America doesn't care about Iraqi oil, we still have the cheapest oil of any country. Muslim extremists are evil. I just read, on this website, about how the extremists in Pakistan outlawed music. I also read about how Sharia law sentences women to be stoned to death for paltry offences. Grow up people, there are people out their who are more evil than Bush.
Joe Nemeth, Ohio

Diplomacy has turned to mud-slinging between those 'for war and those against.' I hope that Blair will restrain Bush into waiting for an additional UN mandate should war be the only option. However, I do not believe that Blair is a sufficiently experienced and a strong enough leader to stand up to Bush and his war mongering side-kicks. Especially as zero proof of WMD exists.
Tony, Beirut, Lebanon

The sophomoric left-wing posts from the States are from a powerless minority. They are mostly just students. It is real simple, as President Bush said; "You are either with us or you are against us" At this point I like most Americans could care less if you all like us or not. I don't want to be your friend, I have enough friends here. If you want to make an enemy of the world's only super power, and a super power on a massive military build-up and modernization program (including ABMs) just let us know. The French and Germans have about two weeks to make that decision. Grow up. This is the real world, it can be a nasty place, always has been, always will be. You are not going to be able to stink your head in the sand and hide.
Frank Kalich, Lawrence, Kansas USA

I can't wait to see what this new evidence linking Iraq to Al Qaeda will be.

Arttu Tolonen, Finland

I can't wait to see what this new evidence linking Iraq to Al Qaeda will be. Probably confessions by prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. Knowing the conditions there and the fact that entire camp is one big, flagrant violation of the Geneva Conventions, I don't think it'll hold much sway with the rest of the world.
Arttu Tolonen, Helsinki, Finland

I'm sure Blair likes to think he has influence in Washington. The only way we'll ever find out though is if himself & Bush have a disagreement in public. The chances of that happening are zero. There's too much stage management involved.
Steve, Zurich, Switzerland

The US is only concerned with oil in Iraq seeing it has the second largest reserves in the world. What if Saddam Hussein is telling the truth that he does not have any weapons of mass destruction, how can you justify killing thousands of innocent people because US "thinks" they have chemical weapons. They have at this present moment no evidence -- this is like sending the death penalty on a person and their entire family because the jury "thinks" the person has committed murder without finding any evidence that would link them to the murder.
Barazi Fuente, UK

Bush and Blair are bogey men.

Jasabanta Choudhuri, India

I think what we can see being said in this forum, is a very strong statement against a war. This echoes the messages that are coming from a majority in the Security Council. The same people that perpetuated Enron and Worldcom also control US Foreign Policy. In the eyes of the world, Bush and Blair are bogey men. I overheard a mother telling her daughter, "Be a good girl or Uncle Bush will come and throw a few bombs at us"
Jasabanta Choudhuri, Kolkata, India

Blair is Bush's poodle. Its as simple as that. If Bush says jump, Blair say how high? What really gets to me is that I read comments supporting these 2 leaders when they are doing exactly what people accuse Saddam of. The West learnt from the Vietnam war, that they have to have a superior propaganda machine. And its incredible in today¿s society, that people take these leaders words at their face value, when they clearly have ulterior motives for a war.
Kareema, Australia

People who criticise Blair as Bush's "poodle" clearly don't understand the first thing about politics or diplomacy. How on earth can we know what Blair is actually saying to Bush without being there at the meetings? His strategy is clearly to be absolutely supportive in public, while exercising considerable influence behind the scenes - don't doubt that the Bush administration would have been much more gung-ho and unilateralist without Blair's influence. The world recognise Blair as a man of moral standing - which is why his support is needed by the US.
David, UK

Is it really in our interest to continue to support US world hegemony?

Timothy Cooper, Cambridge

The central issue that has not, so far, been addressed is whether Tony Blair really has an adequate conception of British (as opposed to American) national interests. Is it really in our interest to continue to support US world hegemony and militarism at the cost of or relations with our European neighbours, and possibly of making Britain a priority target for those who are resisting the dominance of the US? I am very doubtful, but if it is in our interests then perhaps Mr Blair should be discussing making Britain the 51st State.
Timothy Cooper, Cambridge/UK

The question isn't how much Blair can influence Bush - the point is that he does not have the right to influence Bush on our behalf as he is so obviously failing in his democratic duty to represent the views of the UK population - three quarters of whom are totally against this war.
Michael Lai, London, UK

Although I think Mr. Bush is doing a great job as my President, Tony Blair completes the case against Iraq. Obviously he has the ability to lead, for if he listened to the pollsters in the UK or read "The Mirror" lately, he would cave in and protect his political life. Tony Blair is a compassionate man, but doesn't misplace that compassion. He knows the world is uncertain and that the threats of today are real, not about our dominance in the world or oil. Politics always plays a part in these things but Bush and Blair have shown great courage to tackle this endeavour in spite of the misplaced compassion expressed by the anti-war movement. Hopefully it ends peacefully. But as Tony Blair asked today, who would respect the opinion of the UN or the united opinion of the world if Saddam gets another pass after twelve years? Not North Korea. As a US citizen, I think we have no better ally than Britain and Tony Blair.
J Cashman, NJ, USA

Since 9/11 Tony Blair has wisely and effectively become the voice of the West

Sebastian, USA

Since 9/11 Tony Blair has wisely and effectively become the voice of the West, a role simply too big and delicate for George W Bush. By going through the UN first, by letting inspectors have their turn, and (I predict) by seeking final UN approval before invading, the US will have fought the UK's war against Iraq, not the other way around. Now, if we could only get him to run for president here.
Sebastian, USA

Bravo, Europe! How dare the US resort to such bully tactics of aggression over oil. How dare they speak of war and death for material gain. Repent now Mr Bush from such talk of barbaric crusades. Have we not learned from some of our model European allies that conquer and colonisation is the means to settle such differences. I don't much care for our heavy handed persuasions in the world, but it's hardly a precedent. History is full of this tactic and we all know that. It just seems to me that the shoe's on the other foot and many don't seem to like it too much. This reeks of hypocrisy.
Eric, Indianapolis, USA

Blair seems, sadly, to be as enthusiastic about this whole sickening enterprise as his US counterpart.
John, Birmingham, UK

No. Because Tony Blair acting is as Bush's accomplice in his quest to topple a sovereign government and enrich his country and personal wealth from Iraq's oil. This is what the UK and many other imperial leaders did to African resources. Today, Africa is a begging continent. More deplorable is that instead of Tony Blair exerting influence he has become a US puppet.
Sylvester I Okoro, Usaka-Ukwu, Nigeria/USA

How can Blair be considered to have any influence on Bush when he can't even influence a second rate cricket team?
Paul, London UK

Blair is a legend in his own mind

David, Cambridge, UK

Tony Blair is a legend in his own mind. He is as irrelevant to US foreign policy as he is ineffectual in UK domestic policy.
David, Cambridge, UK

Bush is not focusing on a war to detract from domestic failures - let's knock that one on the head. Since I came to the US 20 years ago, I have seen my taxes go down, my gasoline still less than a pound a gallon, superb healthcare, declining crime levels, extremely affordable housing (about half what it is in the UK), excellent schools, clean streets, no lager louts, my pension is safe, and everywhere I go, (despite what the press may try to tell you) I see positive people, and there is much more. Domestic problems? I don't think so.
Rod Garr, USA (Ex-Brit)

Blair is great. The only people who think he's Bush's shadow are the British, who still have low self-esteem because they lost the Empire, and people in Europe who are attempting to sever US/UK relations in favour of a Europe dominated by Germany. In the US, we see Blair as a thoughtful, intelligent leader, much savvier than our president, and a welcome influence. We see the UK as an independent nation allied with us in a joint vision for the world.
Carlynn, New York, USA

To Carlynn, New York, USA. I don¿t mean to burst your bubble, but Blair was elected as British PM, not vice President of the World. The UK electorate's "low self esteem" has nothing to do with losing the empire. It has to do with the nightmare job Blair is doing at home and all his broken promises. Maybe both our leaders should concentrate on trivial things such as education, healthcare & public transport before they move on to bigger challenges like "liberating Iraq".
S M, UK

Why is there a rush to attack Baghdad ?

Linda, Toronto, Canada

Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the UN's nuclear watchdog agency, says in his view, Iraq is not in "material breach" of a UN resolution on disarmament. ElBaradei asks for more time. Why is there a rush to attack Baghdad in February or at all? The world is safe as long as inspectors are in Iraq and doing their job. If there is any credible evidence linking Iraq to al Qaeda it would be common knowledge and quickly quiet sceptics. There is none. Blair must restrain the Bush led aggression, which will lead to catastrophic loss of life on both sides, and convince Washington to participate in mediation and compromise.
Linda WS, Toronto, Canada

Tony Blair is doing a superb job and I don't think "restraint" has anything to do with it. Iraq is a threat to us all and I'm very relieved that Mr. Blair isn't buckling to the anti-war brigade who'd rather leave their own people vulnerable than stand up to Saddam Hussain.
Mark Berridge, England

Blair should not be a "moderating influence" on George Bush - he should be backing him all the way and pushing him on. The longer we postpone the inevitable, the harder it will be for us to win.
David Moran, Scotland/Australia

Maybe the US will eventually succeed to completely overrun Iraq and North Korea, but in the long run the only thing they will get out of it is long-term hostility and distrust from Europeans towards the USA. The Bush Administration is sowing the seeds of conflicts for many generations to come.
Joris Vanderlinden, Belgium

I have believed for some time that it was a major part of Tony Blair's strategy to hang in there and tone down (no pun intended!) U.S. policies. I've read reports that the hawks in the U.S. were seething at Blair and his success in influencing Bush. It was necessary that someone did it and it could just be that we have Tony Blair to thank for guiding Bush toward accepting that action had to be taken through the UN and not despite them. But I think the Blair effect if any has now shifted to merely helping with the effort to heap maximum pressure on Saddam with the hope that if no one blinks he will and be forced to cut and run. The hawks in the U.S. can now smell blood and will no longer be dissuaded
Allan, Glasgow, Scotland

Blair needs pull on the reigns and give us all some breathing space.

Nigel, Oxford, UK

Senator Daschle is correct. Tony Blair now has his last chance to show World and the British people he is made of stronger metal. So far he's just been the kid who hangs around with the playground bully. It is clear that Bush is blinkered to the path of war. The latest attempt at linking Iraq to al-Qaeda is the most transparent propaganda yet. The whole world knows that Iraq has always been opposed to fundamentalism. Blair needs pull on the reigns and give us all some breathing space. It's the only way he'll regain any respect from the British People.
Nigel, Oxford, UK

Mr. Blair can and will be a cautionary influence on Mr. Bush. The skill with which the group of European leaders has been assembled to support the US demonstrates this. I am particularly impressed that Mr. Blair has managed to persuade Spain to join in. Spain has traditionally been very suspicious of US foreign policy, vigorously opposing the action to evict Iraq from Kuwait, for example. I think the use of the term "restraining" is insulting to Mr. Bush, and to Americans in general. The US had a terrible experience and needs support and advice from its friends, not endless criticism and snide remarks from armchair peace-niks.
Tom, Burnley, UK

There are a quarter of a million troops massed far from home and poised to strike. Delay will have consequences including having to battle in heavy hot chemical/biological warfare protective gear in very hot weather. Unless Mr. Blair can demonstrate that a further delay after all this time is somehow very likely to obtain a radical change by Iraq, it will be unreasonable and impossible for the president to impose this disadvantage on our troops.
Mark, USA

Mr Blair wants this war as much as the US does

Aquil Khan, London,

I'm not sure the question is actually appropriate as Mr Blair wants this war as much as the US does and for much of the same reasons - diversion from domestic failures. It's often said that what politicians need is a 'good war' to divert voters attentions away from the real 'boring' issues that they were actually elected for in the first place - well Bush and Blair are certainly trying.
Aquil Khan, London, England

Now that the leaders of Spain, Portugal, Italy, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Denmark have joined Tony Blair in a public statement in The Times, is there any reason to hope that people here will finally recognize that the US is not acting unilaterally? Last I checked, unilaterally meant you were acting alone. 8 allies (so far) from Europe, plus Kuwait, plus several other countries from other parts of the world, does not count as acting alone. President Bush is merely echoing the sentiments of President Bill Clinton regarding Iraq in August 1998, sentiments the world supported. The only difference is that Bush, Blair, and many other countries are finally going to deal with this world problem.

Bush got the support of the Congress, he got a UN resolution, the inspectors were given the time that the UN resolution gave them, Iraq broke the terms of the resolution - which was his last chance, and now Bush has announced that the evidence proving the case linking Hussein to al-Qaeda will come out at the UN on February 5th. Now, with or without the UN but with the world, Bush and Blair will rid the world of a vicious tyrant and probably the principal money source for international terrorism.
Benjamin Elliott, Manassas, VA, USA

Does Blair WANT to be a moderating influence more to the point?
mel , London

Americans are known for their ability to compromise.

Stephen R, USA

Of course Mr. Blair can be a moderating influence. Americans are known for their ability to compromise. I fail to see the newspaper article changing anything, the Germans and the French have their own agendas. History will tell how much those two countries have had illegal dealings with Iraq. This is why they are so against this war. Follow the Money.
Stephen R., Lansing, Mi. U.S.A.

To Stephen R., Lansing (USA),
Larry Lindsey, Bush's economic advisor, said that with a "regime change" in Iraq "you could add 3 to 5 million barrels of oil per day to world supply". "It would be good for business". Who exactly is following the money here?
Dan, UK

Why should Blair be a restraining influence on Bush ? Why does Bush need restraining? He is an intelligent man who is handling the current crisis well. Well done Mr Bush.
Mike, London, England

With reference to Mike's point about Bush being an 'intelligent man' and handling 'the current crisis well', it was Bush who has caused the crisis! With little or no proof that Iraq intends, or is in a position to attack us, and with thousands of innocent lives at risk, is it surprising that most of Europe is against war? And in any event, what makes Bush and his poodle so convinced that the war will bring about 'regime change'. The previous Gulf War only strengthened Saddam Hussein's position.
Gavin, Hampshire, UK

I doubt Tony Blair will have any real influence on American plans as Bush seemed determined to go to war right from the start of this farce. Bush has the backing of his oil buddies; who are also his advisers, so there will be a war as they have too much to gain financially. And as we all know the American dream puts money and power ahead of people's lives.
David Mc, Glasgow, Scotland

PM Blair can and will only be Mr. Bush's voice in Europe.

Patrick, Taipei, Taiwan

PM Blair can and will only be Mr. Bush's voice in Europe. I don't think anyone can 'restrain' Mr. Bush on a decision that's already been made. The delay is only a reaction to worldwide opinion polls and simply a popularity exercise. What I don't understand is why the rest of the world is so willing to help the US further their interests in the Middle East as Mr. Bush so succinctly put it?! If Mr. Bush hadn't started this whole charade, the rest of the world would be dealing with it's own problems rather than with America's problems, wouldn't it?
Christian, London, UK

He's merely Bush's shadow with no discernible independent thoughts or motivations.
Patrick, Taipei, Taiwan

I can just see it now, a remake of 'Dr. Strangelove' with Tony Blair in one of Peter Sellers' roles, Captain Lionel Mandrake of the RAF. That would leave Bush as both General Jack D. Ripper, but also Major Kong, riding the bomb down to Baghdad a-whoopin' and a-hollerin and a-whuppin it with his stetson...
Antony Shepherd, London, England

It is suspicious that you are only talking about the "leaders" who are behind the US. By the way, do you call somebody a leader who backs the US either because of simple greed or because of the fear of being bullied. I appreciate your great English sense of humour!
Valentin, Germany