This must have been George Bush's idea. Because the words Iraq, false evidence and complete denial of the reality on the ground come to mind when I think of Tony Blair. When he first became prime minister, many people had high hopes he would lead Britain with intelligence and make thoughtful, measured decisions. Instead, his checkered record as prime minister - particularly once he aligned himself with George W. Bush - speaks for itself.
In six years, he has been unable to persuade George Bush to do anything about the Middle East. Why would anyone think - with the terrible legacy of Iraq and Blair's consistent practice of spinning the story - he could be even remotely successful in achieving anything in the Middle East, much less peace? After his unfailing support of war in Iraq, few Arabs will trust him. His appointment would mean little, if any progress would be made towards Middle East peace; just more spinning of the status quo.
The majority of his own countrymen no longer respect Tony Blair; why would the Arabs? Some Israelis might support the idea of Blair in the role of a peace envoy, since Blair did nothing when Israeli cluster bombs were raining down on Lebanon last year. But the Arabs? Why on earth would they want their fate linked to Tony Blair's so-called diplomatic skills? Blair seems delusional, even when faced with the facts. On so many levels, his appointment would be a bad idea. Please say it isn't so!