Buy Vytorin 10 40 Where To Buy Abilify Online Buy Uncoated Aspirin Augmentin Ftbl 1g 875/125 Mg Wellbutrin 100 Mg Pills

At least Tony Blair’s book title makes sense


12:02 pm - August 19th 2010

by Paul Sagar    


      Share on Tumblr

Tony Blair’s forthcoming memoirs have already been getting some attention.

Obviously, I’m not important enough to have not read them in advance. But nor will I be reading them when they are published. And it’s not just because, as Dave Osler notes, they will contain nothing new (except, perhaps, new lies).

It’s because the title of the book tells us everything we need to know already.


Originally entitled The Journey, Tony’s explanation of how he got everything right will now be called A Journey. This is entirely appropriate. If TB had stuck to the definite article, it would imply that his premiership was somehow singularly important; an event or happening that was central and incomparable.

But that’s never the way Tony saw it. Just as ambitious young politicos view internships at Westminster as stepping-stones to greater things, so Blair saw being PM of the UK. A Journey is thus far more appropriate, leaving the door open, as it does, to future adventures.

But, appropriately enough, “a journey” still carries the messianic overtones suitable for the memoirs of a man permanently assured of his own righteous certainty. The notion of “a journey” is long-established as a trope of religious self-discovery; from Saul becoming Paul on the road to Damascus, to the “journey” of Christ espoused by contemporary evangelicals in particular.

For a man who not only felt the hand of history on his shoulder, but whose very public flirtations with Catholicism left little to the imagination regarding who he fancied he had a hotline too, a journey” is, again, entirely apt.

Yet there’s also an entirely appropriate shallowness. Although “a journey” carries vaguely religious overtones, it also screams of superficiality, of a longing for profundity which is conspicuously absent. Typically, those who opine about the importance of “undertaking a journey” are fairly uninteresting individuals more preoccupied with proving they live lives of spiritual depth than actually doing so.

The sort of people who are drawn to new age spiritualist nonsense, and “believe” in Chinese medicine. Or who, for example, partake in a Mayan “rebirthing” ceremonies, covered in mud, and praying to giant lizards.

Furthermore, “a journey” succeeds in capturing perhaps the most outstanding of what we might call Blair’s “deep” political failings. For Blair, what mattered was always, precisely, the journey. It didn’t really matter where he was going, or for that matter where he was taking the rest of us. Sure, overtures were made about the importance of invading other countries, or of involving the private sector, or of endlessly spying on the citizenry.

What mattered for TB was the fun of the trip. Like a compulsive globe-trotter who doesn’t care where he ends up so long as he gets the thrill of take-off, Blair never gave too much thought to where exactly he was headed.

What mattered was always that he, Tony Blair, was having a nice little journey. And if that phrase now sounds hollow and lilliputian – especially given the facts of recent history – that, too, is entirely appropriate.



Image from the excellent Beau Bo D’Or

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Paul Sagar is a post-graduate student at the University of London and blogs at Bad Conscience.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Humour ,Media

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


You haven’t read it and you won’t be reading it, why then are you advertising it?

2. margin4error

I’ll be reading it. Will be interesting to read how Blair saw certain aspects of his political career, what with everyone else under the sun having told us all endlessly for years their many varied absolute truths about what he thinks, what he believes, and what he cares about.

Might pick it up when it’s reduced to £1 in The Works 😉

@1 it’s just a wry analysis of the title, hardly an advert.

4. John Meredith

What is it about Blair that brings out the pseudo-psychologist in people? And Blair may be arrogant and wrong-headed and shallow, even dishonest, but I don’t recall him being so utterly self-absorbed as to expect us to be interested in hearing about the books he isn’t planning to read. Sheesh.

“It’s because the title of the book tells us everything we need to know already.”

Who, exactly, are you speaking for when you use the word “us”. You may be so easily satisfied others, may well not be.

For someone who hasn’t read the book you appear to be awfully sure of your facts as to what it will contain (lies). I think this article says more about you than the book quite frankly.

“For someone who hasn’t read the book you appear to be awfully sure of your facts as to what it will contain (lies). ”

Yeah, because it’s not like TB has a track record in this department or anything, is it?

It still amazes me that people come out to defend Blair. Wilfully (mis)leading Britain into the worst foreign policy disaster since Suez alone should be enough for any thinking person to give him the cold shoulder. And that’s without even considering the domestic front.

7. John Meredith

“Wilfully (mis)leading Britain into the worst foreign policy disaster since Suez alone should be enough for any thinking person to give him the cold shoulder.”

Oh absolutely, no thinking person could possibly disagree with Paul Sagar’s characterisation of Blair’s foreign policy. Do you know many true Scotsmen Paul?

What is the point in reading this book?

Blair will not admit that he spent his entire period as labour leader terrified of the right wing media. And that was one of the main reasons for his lies over Iraq. He had spent years cultivating a special relationship with Murdoch and then he was faced with having to give the finger to either Murdoch (who was a huge supporter of Bush) or the British nation. He chose to say fuck you to Britain. But he did not mind, because he could rely on the pro colonial tories to support him.

What you won’t read about is the massive opportunity he had, but wasted , which comes once in a generation , with the country utterly sick and pissed off with the conservatives there was a chance to really change Briton. But Blair put his fear of the right wing media above everything else.

He can pretend that he had a hot line with the good Lord all he likes, but really Tony answered to Rupert.

9. John Meredith

“What is the point in reading this book? Blair will not admit that he spent his entire period as labour leader terrified of the right wing media … ‘

Yeah, what IS the point of reading things that don’t conform our prejudices? That would just be confusing and upsetting!

10. Shatterface

‘But that’s never the way Tony saw it. Just as ambitious young politicos view internships at Westminster as stepping-stones to greater things, so Blair saw being PM of the UK. A Journey is thus far more appropriate, leaving the door open, as it does, to future adventures.’

I’m as thrilled about the prospect of The Further Adventures of Tony Blair as I would be about a fifth Indiana Jones or another Star Wars prequel.

9

Are you Alistair Campbell in disguise?

Apparently you are either ignorant of Bliars lies or maybe a bit dim.

12. Shatterface

Though Revenge of the Sith wasn’t bad.

13. John Meredith

“Apparently you are either ignorant of Bliars lies or maybe a bit dim.”

Yes, because there just cannot be any other position; anybody who does not see things your way must be stupid, ill-informed, or dishonest. Your policy of never reading books that contradict your world view must be a great comfort to you.

14. John Meredith

“Though Revenge of the Sith wasn’t bad.”

Yo mama! as they say in the edgier parts of Surrey.

Are you a tory?

That would explain so much.

16. charles hercock

Blair,the messiah’s journey is not over
Would that Dave could reach such heights

I’m as thrilled about the prospect of The Further Adventures of Tony Blair as I would be about a fifth Indiana Jones or another Star Wars prequel.

Blair’s journey might be something that George Lucas can’t possibly make worse.

I’m not sure I could suspend disbelief long enough to read this book, or overcome the nausea that would accompany handing over good money for it. As one of the many who feel a huge sense of betrayal about the 13 wasted years, and the baleful legacy of Blairism, perhaps I just value my house contents too much to risk breaking them when I hurl this weighty tome with considerable force across the room?

Perhaps one day I will be able to force that sick feeling in my throat for long enough to read the account on one chancers epic journey from wide eyed, eagerly awaited Bambi who made Labour electable, to the fixed stare and rictus grin of the messianic principle void who destroyed it.

If you think back to 1997 and the refrains of “Things Can Only Get Better” at the start of his journey, one can only bow one’s head and weep.

@Sally

He had spent years cultivating a special relationship with Murdoch and then he was faced with having to give the finger to either Murdoch (who was a huge supporter of Bush)

Was?

Did I mention that I don’t like tories?

Oh I see I already did

Once more cant hurt though.

Might pick it up when it’s reduced to £1 in The Works

I’ll see your ‘The Works’ and ‘raise’ you 50p in Oxfam.

25. charles hercock

Sally

You really should learn to love our saviours

@redpesto

50p in Oxfam?! Down at my local Oxfam I’d be lucky to get any book cheaper than £2.99…*grumble* now the YMCA shop on the other hand, picked up Roy Jenkins’ Churchill biography for 75p t’other day 😀

Perhaps Blair is a devotee of Journey Therapy

http://www.journey-therapy.co.uk/

‘As any of my clients would tell you, Journey Therapy is not easy to sum up in a few words.

The best way I can describe the experience is to imagine that when you were born a rucksack was put on your back and over the years pebbles, rocks or even bricks were put into your rucksack, each relevent to all the unhappy, sad, scary, etc., things that happened to you in your life. Imagine the feeling of taking that heavy rucksack of your back – that’s the kind of feeling that Journey Therapy can have – often instantly.

Journey Therapy enables you to gently uncover the memory from which your issue has arisen, allowing you to release the suppressed emotion associated with that memory. Free from that suppressed emotion your body is then able to heal itself, normally, as it does every day.

Journey Therapy gives you the tools to resolve your issues and let them go.

There is no physical contact and it is not necessary to discuss your memories. ‘

…or maybe not

@Mr S Pill – ‘Oxfam’ is the the ‘Hoover’ of charity shops (trust me, I know all about their pricing policy…grrr)

I am continually amazed how many people still waste time trying to defend Blair.

@28

Ah! Understood 🙂

31. the a&e charge nurse

Don’t worry about the price of the book guys – it only means more in the pot for those who actually paid the price for Tony’s folly.

@31 a&e

I’d sooner give the whole cover price to a good cause than push up the sales of the book I reckon…!

I am not the Sally that posts at 21,22,23.

Not that anyone would be interested, but I just thought I would point it out.

@33 “Sally”

Would the real Sally please stand up…? Or at least chose a profile name to differentiate her from the well known LC conspiracy theorist of the same name?

Now you’ve made remarks about Blair being Catholic, could you do a similarly prejudiced article about a Jewish politician, please?

I’d just be curious to see if that was equally acceptable.

Hey! What’s going on? Some intelligent commenters here at “Liberal Conspiracy”. (There certainly is a liberal conspiracy, btw, except it’s anti-liberty.

Well done John Meredith and others who are showing up this small-minded writer for what he is. small. (No capital “s” necessary.)

History will show the Iraq decision to have been the right one. Perhaps even the best decision Tony Blair made, and he made some great ones.

As for “A “Journey, not “The” – I was the first to notice this, picked up by John Rentoul and then eventually the Guardian. Why Rentoul and I find others lagging behind so frequently I can’t imagine.

http://keeptonyblairforpm.wordpress.com/2010/07/13/blairs-a-journey-guardian-learns-s-l-o-w-l-y-from-blair-supporter/

In fact the indefinite article is FAR far better. It ain’t over till the fat lady sings.

@36

I can’t work out if you’re a parody or not. If so, bravo. If not, seek help.

@35 oldandrew

I’m sure the OP can speak for himself, but I doubt he’s alone in finding Blair’s spiritual journey to leading to his conversion to Roman Catholicism an important part of “the” journey, one which is an entirely legitimate subject for debate, and possibly instructive as to explaining his actions and “world view”.

Whether this amounts to prejudice as you state or, as seems more likely, to a faintly hysterical attempt on your part to defend “people of faith” from any analysis of their beliefs, is something people can make their own minds up about.

My point is about the double standard, rather than to suggest that the solution is never to attack people for their religion. Catholics are attacked for their faith on this site in a way that Jews, Sikhs or Muslims would never be.

There certainly is a liberal conspiracy, btw, except it’s anti-liberty.

Doesn’t a conspiracy have to be fairly secret? Tony & co. were quite open about being anti-liberty.

My point is about the double standard, rather than to suggest that the solution is never to attack people for their religion. Catholics are attacked for their faith on this site in a way that Jews, Sikhs or Muslims would never be.

The OP didn’t attack Catholics.

@39 oldandrew

I’ve seen no evidence of the double standard you note at all – all religions should be open to analysis as I can see, particularly in the view of people who don’t share that or any belief system. It doesn’t seem to me that the OP could be construed as an “attack” on religion at all, stll less that it demonstrates a double standard because the Catholic church is being unfairly singled out.

If the doctrines or actions of any of the religions you note (or any of the myriad others all of which no doubt believe themselves to be the “one true faith”) are thought to be questions of legitimate concern, why shouldn’t they be attacked?

@39

Don’t do this. There is one mention of Catholicism, in the context of Blair’s personal faith seemingly taking precedence over his national obligations. That’s literally it. It’s nothing to do with specific tenets of Catholicism.

Stop using specious nonsense to stir up argument. You’re being transparently disingenuous and nobody thinks it’s funny.

@ 37, Mr S Pill – you mean keep taking the Pills? No thanks. Not if your sick opinions are the outcome.

Re the title of the book, it’s irksome because it seems to prove what we’ve been wondering all along: Blair was never interested in Great Britain in the slightest, and his every decision was made to satisfy his own personal need to be ‘a great man’.

Now I don’t like the politics of Dave, nor Nick, nor any of the Nulab shower, but they are at least all where they are because they think they’re doing right by their constituents (even if they believe this irrationably, and even if their constituents rationally disagree).

Blair, on the other hand, has transparently lost interest in Britain and appears to consider his tenure to be part of ‘his’ story, rather than part of ours. He appears not to really think that his career has affected anyone except himself, and that he’s got some kind of blessed destiny to fulfil that renders rational criticism as a trivial annoyance.

In short, he thinks he’s Jesus Christ but he lacks the humility or humanity to realise how misguided he is and how many lives have been ruined by his blinkered pursuit of greatness in God’s eyes.

He’s a deluded, selfish, proud, wannabe prophet and I hope we never see his like again in politics, here or anywhere. If it’s any consolation, his Catholicism implies that he’ll spend millenia in purgatory before he even sets eyes on his reward.

My point is not that this article is an attack on Catholics, or that the people behind it wouldn’t criticise other religions in the abstract.

My point is that one of its criticisms of Tony Blair is for his Catholicism but you wouldn’t dare do the same to a Jewish politician. That’s the double standard. Personal attacks on a Catholic holding a secular position bring their religion into it, personal attacks on a Jew, Muslim or Sikh wouldn’t.

If you think I’m wrong, find an example of a similar attack on a politician of a non-Christian religion. Should be easy to prove me wrong if I am wrong. Show me the article that says, for instance, “Michael Howard, as a Jew, believes he has a hotline to God” and you’ll prove me wrong.

Should be easy. Or at least it would be if there wasn’t a double standard.

Any mention in Blair’s memoires of his 22-page letter to Michael Foot in 1982:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5081798.stm

And his interview with Des O’Connor in 1996?

“The first sound of bats flapping in his belfry was heard even before the election, in December 1996, when he told Des O’Connor that as a 14-year-old he had run away to Newcastle airport and boarded a plane for the Bahamas: ‘I snuck onto the plane, and we were literally about to take off when the stewardess came up to me…’ Quite how he managed this without a boarding card or passport was not explained. It certainly came as a surprise to his father (‘The Bahamas? Who said that? Tony? Never’), and an even greater surprise to staff at the airport, who pointed out that there has never been a flight from Newcastle to the Bahamas.

“A couple of years later, he told an interviewer that his ‘teenage hero’ was the footballer Jackie Milburn, whom he would watch from the seats behind the goal at St James’s Park. In fact, Milburn played his last game for Newcastle United when Blair was just four years old, and there were no seats behind the goal at the time.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,230340,00.html

@46

Being jewish isn’t a religion. Being catholic isn’t a race.

Hope this helps.

@46 oldandrew

It’s NOT for his catholicism… it would be the same if he’d converted to any other religion. as Gwyn said @39 you are merely trying to use your slightly odd views about how hard done to Catholics are to pick an argument on specious grounds. as I recall you did the same in an earlier thread about alegations of the Catholic heirarchy covering up sex abuse.

“it would be the same if he’d converted to any other religion”

Would it?

Could you show me some examples of that sort of attack on this site?

@ Bob B, 47 –

Except he didn’t. The Milburn bit anyway. It was the LIES of the Northern Sunday Sun. See their confession to Blair here:

http://keeptonyblairforpm.wordpress.com/2008/11/17/confession-it-was-the-sun-wot-done-it-blair-it-was-you-b/

A little like the “Yo, Blair” which Bush NEVER said either, I don’t expect the Haters to accept the evidence of their own eyes. T’was ever thus.

“Being jewish isn’t a religion. Being catholic isn’t a race.”

Isn’t this the same excuse the BNP use for their attitude to Muslims?

My point is not that this article is an attack on Catholics, or that the people behind it wouldn’t criticise other religions in the abstract.

My point is that one of its criticisms of Tony Blair is for his Catholicism…

It seems to me the OP didn’t criticise Tony for his Catholicism in itself but rather his claim to be Catholic (and spiritual) on the one hand and his behaviour on the other.

@50 oldandrew

I don’t accept that you premise is correct, and have no interest in trawling thru LC to try and refute your paranoia. I’m confident that if Blair, or any other individual in similar circumstances, would get the same treatment whatever imaginary set of fairy stories he was using as cover, not least from me.

There is nothing particularly special about Catholicism, except perhaps it’s longevity and the fact it is now so widespread.

To put it another way, if you replaced “Catholicism” in the following sentence with another religion, would the meaning change?

“For a man who not only felt the hand of history on his shoulder, but whose very public flirtations with Catholicism left little to the imagination regarding who he fancied he had a hotline too, “a journey” is, again, entirely apt.”

52,

That’s just another argument for why the sectarian line of attack was acceptable *in principle* and you could well be right. However, what I’m after is the question of why the principle applies selectively. (Or evidence that it doesn’t.)

53,

I’m sure I’m going to regret continuing to engage with you, but what “premise”?

“To put it another way, if you replaced “Catholicism” in the following sentence with another religion, would the meaning change?”

Meaning, no.

Chance of it seeing print in this forum, yes.

@55 oldandrew

I’m not engaging with you. You’ve proven in the past to be a hopeless case – I wouldn’t waste the effort, other people’s time on here..or the space on LC.

Can’t you at least tell us this “premise” before you go?

@58

The premise that a double standard operates. But as I say.. you’ve already proven to my satisfaction on the other thread that you aren’t open to rational argument, so as far as I’m concerned further exchanges are fruitless and annoying for other posters.

Ref – 47 Bob B,

Any reason you are not showing my comment with the link to the video of the Northern Sun admitting they lied about the Milburn nonsesnse. Any reason, oh great liberal conspiracy?

“The premise that a double standard operates”

I think you need to look up what a “premise” is.

Some irony here given your comments about “rational argument”.

I greatly look forward to the chapter in the book where Tony explains the logic behind why he and Bush did the very thing Bin Laden demanded.

Bin Landed demanded the removal of Saddam from Iraq, so that Islamic fundamentalism could get a foot hold in that country. Can’t wait for Tony to explain the logic of that one. Also , I will be fascinated how after a bunch of Saudi high jackers who came from Afghanistan attacked on 9/11, Tony and George decided to attack, er Iraq.

@61: “Also , I will be fascinated how after a bunch of Saudi high jackers who came from Afghanistan attacked on 9/11, Tony and George decided to attack, er Iraq.”

There are several credible explanations. For starters, try these American sources:

“CRAWFORD, Texas — Paul O’Neill, President Bush’s Treasury secretary in the first two years of his presidency, says the Bush administration was planning to invade Iraq long before the Sept. 11 attacks and used questionable intelligence to justify the war.”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-01-11-oneill-iraq_x.htm

“WASHINGTON — The White House’s former top anti-terrorism adviser says President Bush ignored warnings about al-Qaeda and ordered him to find a link between the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and Iraq. . .

“Clarke also wrote that National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice appeared never to have heard of al-Qaeda until she was warned early in 2001 about the terrorist organization and that she ‘looked skeptical’ about his warnings. . .

“As early as Sept. 12, 2001, Clarke says, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld urged bombing Iraq despite repeated assurances from intelligence officials that the threat emanated from Afghanistan.

“‘Rumsfeld said there aren’t any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq,’ Clarke said on Sunday’s 60 Minutes. I said, ‘Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.'”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-03-20-clarke_x.htm

“WASHINGTON – At least $8.8 billion in Iraqi funds that was given to Iraqi ministries by the former U.S.-led authority there cannot be accounted for, according to a draft U.S. audit set for release soon.

“The audit by the Coalition Provisional Authority’s own inspector general blasts the CPA for ‘not providing adequate stewardship’ of at least $8.8 billion from the Development Fund for Iraq that was given to Iraqi ministries.

“The audit was first reported on a Web site earlier this month by David Hackworth, a journalist and retired colonel. A U.S. official confirmed that the contents of the leaked audit cited by Hackworth were accurate. . .

“One of the main benefactors of the Iraq funds was the Texas-based firm Halliburton, which was paid more than $1 billion out of those funds to bring in fuel for Iraqi civilians.

“The monitoring board said despite repeated requests it had not been given access to U.S. audits of contracts held by Halliburton, which was once run by Vice President Dick Cheney, and other firms that used the development funds.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5763483/

@60 oldandrew

I refer you to Gwyn’s response @43.

63,

I already replied to that in 46.

I already replied to that in 46.

“My point is that one of its criticisms of Tony Blair is for his Catholicism …”

But it isn’t about Catholicism per se, it doesn’t criticise Tony for being Catholic, it criticises his behaviour.

@65 ukliberty

I advise you save your breath. Past experience shows that Gwyn is right: it was the same story a few weeks ago in a thread about the Catholic church and it’s inadequate response to child abuse by priests, he constantly demands evidence but won’t engage in real debate.

I regard it as both relevant and timely to comment on the Catholic Church’s policies on such topical issues as contraception, abortion and practising paedophiles, which Tony Blair now subscribes to.

There have been previous posts with comments here about muslims and burqas and about the Israeli state and Palestine.

Perhaps some contributor will discover topical issues relating to Buddhists and Hindus in due course.

@67 Bob B

No, really Bob…don’t encourage him!! You’ll now be challenged to provide chapter and verse, preferably notarised, then it will still be labelled a farago of lies to discredit the poor benighted Catholic church.

In the debate a few weeks ago, it seems the only “proof” he would accept was that people had actually been present at the events, or contacted the people concerned personally….. trust me, it’s not worth the effort engaging with him.

71. the a&e charge nurse

Didn’t the war in Iraq predate Tony’s defection to the catholics (from the anglican church)?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7157409.stm

So if anybody is blaming god then they are blaming the wrong god?

@69 a&e

Don’t all of those with imaginary friends insist that it’s basically the same friend, it’s just that all the unbelievers open their eggs at the wring end or some such?

The date he transferred allegiance from one bunch of sky God worhippers to the other is probably less important than the light his spiritual journey sheds on the flawed personality of the man the journey as a whole.

There are precedents.As I recall, when Blair governments ran into difficulties in Parliament from effective opposition, the usual practice was to wheel yet another round of debates on banning fox hunting. In all, Parliament spent over 700 hours debating a ban on hunting with hounds.

Btw before anyone construes that as a defence of fox hunting, I’ve never seen a fox hunt in my life – although I regularly catch sight of neighbourhood foxes here in urban London.

@69: “So if anybody is blaming god then they are blaming the wrong god?”

Reportedly, Blair was in the habit of taking Catholic Communion for years before he formally joined the Catholic Church. Indeed, by accounts in the press, he was asked for a pledge not to do this which he evidently broke:

“TONY BLAIR’S family priest strongly hinted yesterday that the Prime Minister was breaking his pledge not to take Roman Catholic Holy Communion in Britain. Father Timothy Russ also said that Mr Blair, an Anglican, ‘may well’ convert to Catholicism. The revelation will increase speculation that Mr Blair is preparing to convert to Roman Catholicism despite a clear denial from Downing Street.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article494563.ece

51. Theirs, sure. But not mine. They hated asians even before one of them even opened a translated Koran, looking for dirt. Their reference to ‘Islam’ is much more disingenuous than anything you or the OP could be accused of. Best not to use them as a frame of reference, IMO.

76. the a&e charge nurse

[70] indeed – the interaction between a flawed leader a variety of deities brings to mind leaders like this;
http://www.bloggerheads.com/fake/images/fake_bush_blair_praying.jpg

Or even this;
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/images/ahmadinejad-pic01.jpg


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    At least Tony Blair's book title makes sense http://bit.ly/dpJmAQ

  2. The “Liberal Conspiracy” blog is NOT liberal. But it IS a conspiracy « Tony Blair

    […] It came to mind because of my recent experience at a blog called Liberal Conspiracy. Yesterday I sent in a few comments to this dreadful post by Paul Sagar – “At least Tony Blair’s book title makes sense“ […]





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.