On the face of it they are two very different men: one, a brash Texan from a Republican political dynasty; the other an articulate British lawyer who led the Labour party out of the political wilderness to three historic victories.

They may be different, but for President Bush and Prime Minister Blair, their political destinies has been inter-twinned for the last five years since 9/11. They have stood shoulder to shoulder on the “War on Terror”, Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon and now perhaps Iran.

Take Blair. The bitter political in-fighting over his future during the last week is now supposedly over with a truce between the Brown and Blair camps.  We now will have months of a political fiasco as Blair tries to stage manage his legacy. Last week, a leaked memo showed that his close political allies are working on an “exit” strategy for Blair. “His genuine legacy is not the delivery, important though that is, but the dominance of new Labour ideas... the triumph of Blairism”, said the memo. Blair will probably leave in May next year – he plans a regional tour of the UK and a flurry of media interviews to talk up the success of his ten years in office.

In the shorter-term, Blair argues that re-instating the Middle East road-map is a priority before he leaves. But he is no longer seen as credible in the area because of his close political support for Israel. Yesterday, Lebanon’s most senior Shia cleric, Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, told Blair he is not welcome in Beirut, arguing that the Lebanese government should have declared Blair “persona non grata” because of his support for Israel.

The truth is Blair’s visit will not be a success, rather more of what we have come to expect: a media-managed operation to try and make him look like a world statesman rather than failed politician. The awful truth for the British Labour party is that Blair, once their most prized asset has now become their worst liability.

If he had resigned before the war in Iraq, he may have been remembered as one of the great modernising prime ministers. If he had refused to send British troops, his biographers would have noted him for courage and conviction. But Iraq destroyed what trust people had in Blair.

 After “dodgy dossiers,” failed intelligence, and misinformation from spin doctors, people no longer believed him on Iraq. Slowly but surely they no longer began to believe him on other issues he championed such as world poverty and the environment. They believe that his government is too much spin and not enough substance.

And last week the figures were published that confirmed what many long suspected. The amount being spent on Government advertising, marketing and public relations has increased three-fold since Mr. Blair entered Number 10. When the figures were announced, the Conservatives accused Blair’s government of wasting public money on the “wages of spin”. The government tried to defend itself arguing that in these days of 24 hour news, you needed more press officers, but the excuses seemed lame in front of the damning statistics.

Last week, one political commentator wrote in the Guardian newspaper: “Blair has lost the benefit of the nation's doubt. Without the country's trust there is simply no chance of eradicating child poverty, or dealing with the environment or our foreign-policy disasters”. Blair, the article concluded: “is too damaged. If he tries to go on, and is allowed to, our hopes are wrecked and all our worst fears are realized”. It is a damning statement for a politician who is slowly limping towards the political wilderness.

Like Blair, Bush has seen his popularity plummet. Just as Blair’s government has tried to spin its way out of trouble so too has Bush’s. Despite the daily evidence of carnage and widespread belief that Iraq is slipping into civil war, the Bush administration has long tried to argue that the problems in Iraq are one of bad publicity not bad planning that led to a misconceived invasion.

In October 2003, Bush said the media's "filter" on news events in Iraq was to blame. A year later there were reports of a public relations campaign to try and put a positive gloss on the conflict before the 2004 Presidential elections. Last year the conservative Media Research Center attacked America's main TV news channels for their "defeatist coverage" of the war. The Center accused the channels of being “skewed towards bad news”.

The spinning has reached new heights recently. At the end of last month and on a day when over fifty people were killed in Baghdad, the Washington Post reported how “U.S. military leaders in Baghdad have put out a bid for a two-year, $20 million public relations contract that calls for extensive monitoring of U.S. and Middle Eastern media in an effort to promote more positive coverage of news from Iraq”. The contract calls for a programme to provide "public relations products" that would improve coverage of the military command's performance.

In the contract, monitors will select stories that deal with specific issues, such as security, reconstruction activities, "high profile" coalition force activities and events in which Iraqi security forces are “in the lead”. The monitors are to analyze stories to determine the "dissemination of key themes and messages" along with whether the "tone" is positive, neutral or negative.

This is all part of a coherent policy to try and spin the news by Washington. Last month Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's made a major speech before the American Legion criticising the media for their coverage of the conflict. Also last month Donald Rumsfeld tried to argue that critics of the war in Iraq, “seem not to have learned history’s lessons,” alluding to those people in the 1930’s who advocated appeasing Nazi Germany. 

For Rumsfeld to liken opponents of the Iraq war to those who supported Adolf Hitler is extremely damaging and dangerous. It also shows how desperate this Republican Administration has come, because it is an age-old political strategy: if you cannot defend your strategy, the only thing left is to demonise your critics. If you cannot get your message across, shoot the messenger.

Let us not forget who the real winners of the war in Iraq and “War on Terror” are. Five years on from 9/11 we have entered an era of constant warfare. We live in a much more dangerous and divided world.  But there have been winners. A report has just been published by two non-governmental organizations in the US, United for a Fair Economy and The Institute for Policy Studies. Every year they take a look at the pay of senior American executives.

The report found that between 2001 and 2005, average profits for the 34 defence firms in the US in their survey jumped 189 percent. In those four years, the 34 top defense CEOs received a staggering $984,008,400. “To put that huge sum in some perspective, it would be large enough to cover the entire wage bill for more than a million Iraqis for a year”, concluded the report. In 2005 US defence contracts totaled $269 billion, up from $154 billion in 2001.

One company that has prospered is the engineering company Halliburton that has had a string of contracts and controversies in Iraq. The report noted that “CEO David Lesar made $26.6 million last year, despite a continuing stream of scandals related to the company’s work in Iraq. While Halliburton’s future Iraq work is uncertain, Lesar will enjoy the nearly $50 million he has made since the “War on Terror” began”. Halliburton of course has close ties to the Bush Administration. Dick Cheney, Bush’s Vice President used to be Hallibuton’s CEO.

 So two men – two different political parties, two different continents, but one political fate: a legacy of failed policies in the Middle East and of trying to spin the war in Iraq.

But there may be worse to come. Bush may feel that a lasting legacy will be to remove the nuclear threat from Iran. Last week, he demanded that there be "consequences" for Iran after it ignored a UN deadline to stop its nuclear programme. These consequences could be sanctions or worse still military action.

Blair will no doubt support Bush, as he has done repeatedly in the past. But attacking Iran is one dangerous policy decision that we must not allow the two leaders to make. Instead we should force both men to resign now. Shoulder to shoulder, as they have been for the last five years.