Godfather Tony

[-:Undertaker:-]

You find two threads I bet I could find 30+ at least you have posted in respect of Tony Blair. I agree it is probably not a fixation more of an obsession that tbh is getting quite boring.

Indeed you could, I criticise politicians in office across the board whereas you only attack the blue and yellow ones.

Cameron may have modelled himself on Blair but he is a mere shadow of him. You talk about me not living in the real world?

Mr Cameron and Mr Blair agree on most issues, from foreign policy to the European Union, to education, to healthcare, to size and scope of the public sector, to the extent of civil liberties, to our relationship with the United States, to our involvement in overseas adventures, to political correctness (equality and diversity legislation). If you wish to pick me up on this point then i'd be more than happy to go into each example and list exactly how and where they agree, and why they agree.

All leaders of all countries 'cosy up' as you put it. It is a fact of life whether we like it or not in the politics of the world. I feel though he went with the best of intentions to get him to give up his chemical weapons.

Why didn't we cosy upto Saddam then in that case? oh wait we did many years ago along with supporting him in his war that he started against Iran - a country which now is after nuclear weapons and yet you wonder why. But ap[art from that, he [Saddam] allowed inspectors in to prove it - but still, the truth was simply too inconvenient for Mr Blair and Mr Bush.

At least he did something probably knowing he would be crucified for it when others complain but do sod all.

Mr Blair hasn't been punished for his lies and hypocrisy, he is a very rich man.

My best friend's a socialist, doesn't mean I share his views

But Murdoch and Blair do share the same views, see the Hitchens link.

[FlyingJesus]

I also have liberal conservative friends yet I don't always take their advice on matters

[Catzsy]

Indeed you could, I criticise politicians in office across the board whereas you only attack the blue and yellow ones.

Oh I have criticised Gordon Brown, Nigel Farage, Nick Griffin, Ed Milliband for his softly, softly approach and I am sure others in my time. I certainly do not spend 99% of my time criticising one person.

Mr Cameron and Mr Blair agree on most issues, from foreign policy to the European Union, to education, to healthcare, to size and scope of the public sector, to the extent of civil liberties, to our relationship with the United States, to our involvement in overseas adventures, to political correctness (equality and diversity legislation). If you wish to pick me up on this point then i'd be more than happy to go into each example and list exactly how and where they agree, and why they agree.

As I said Cameron has based himself on Blair but is a mere shadow. Cameron spends most of his mind changing his mind. At least Tony Blair as with Margaret Thatcher (whether we agreed with them or not) had the courage of their convictions.

Why didn't we cosy upto Saddam then in that case? oh wait we did many years ago along with supporting him in his war that he started against Iran - a country which now is after nuclear weapons and yet you wonder why. But ap[art from that, he [Saddam] allowed inspectors in to prove it - but still, the truth was simply too inconvenient for Mr Blair and Mr Bush.

Or possibly because he had invaded Kuwait and had been subject to sanctions by the UN since 1990 and had killed 50,000 Kurds. Just a few small things that spring to mind.

Mr Blair hasn't been punished for his lies and hypocrisy, he is a very rich man.

What has being rich got to do with anything? If he just wanted to be a rich man he would not have spent almost 25 years in politics. Money cannot buy reputation and he has been crucified by many. He believed in what he did and had the courage to do it. The American Ambassador summed up it perfectly. He said it is all very well to criticise an action with 20/20 hindsight but it does not mean that decision was not right given the times we then lived in.

But Murdoch and Blair do share the same views, see the Hitchens link.

Sorry Dan that would be like asking Burger King who make the best burgers - one would not get an unbiased view.

These are Tony Blairs belief - he was a centre left politician.
http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/man/lab97.htm
Murdoch is supposed to be a neo conservative but this quote I believe sums him up the best:

Some observers see Murdoch as more closely attracted to power and opportunism than ideology. Tim Arango of the New York Times writes, “Mr. Murdoch's politics have often proved more malleable and less dogmatic than his critics have portrayed. He has been pragmatic in aligning himself, and his company, with power, rather than ideology. He supported Tony Blair in Britain, and in 2006, his New York Post endorsed Hillary Rodham Clinton for the Senate. Mr. Murdoch even hosted a fundraiser for Mrs. Clinton. And shortly after the election of Barack Obama as president, the Post fawned over him in its pages

[-:Undertaker:-]

Oh I have criticised Gordon Brown, Nigel Farage, Nick Griffin, Ed Milliband for his softly, softly approach and I am sure others in my time. I certainly do not spend 99% of my time criticising one person.

Only based on myths, you too I remember joined the press-gangup in an attempt to oust Gordon Brown. While he should have been ousted many years ago for his incompetence and stupidity, this is not what you seeked to oust him for - you simply seeked to oust him for both electoral gain.

As I said Cameron has based himself on Blair but is a mere shadow. Cameron spends most of his mind changing his mind. At least Tony Blair as with Margaret Thatcher (whether we agreed with them or not) had the courage of their convictions.

Mr Blair also spent his time changing his mind many times, the best example that springs to my mind is the example of the EU Consitution/Lisbon Treaty referendum promise. They are both exactly the same, whilst I agree Mr Blair has views (to the very left, not right wing as many pretend) so does Mr Cameron - which are the same as those of Mr Blair.

The pair of them are committed to comprehensive education, subverting us to the European Union, a large public sector, curtailing of civil liberties, the war against marriage and the family, foreign military adventures, continued running down of the armed forces, a committment to a gigantic and expensive healthcare system, devotion to political correctness and equality, both are in support of idiotic devolution across the Kingdom, both are committed to a failed monetary policy...... I could go on and on, but if you disagree with these points i'd be more than happy for you to pick me up on them and we can then come to the eventual conclusion they that are indeed the same.

As Peter Hitchens described it, the difference between the Labour Party which is full of ex-Trotskyists and the Conservative Party which isn't - is that at least the Labour Party understands what it is doing (embarking upon), and thats it. But in terms of policy, as I said; two peas in a pod.

Or possibly because he had invaded Kuwait and had been subject to sanctions by the UN since 1990 and had killed 50,000 Kurds. Just a few small things that spring to mind.

The starvation of Iraq you mean by UN sanctions? because its always the people who suffer with sanctions whereas the leaders do not. After all, the sanctions and consquent starvation in Iraq was one of the reasons Osama Bin Laden gave for attacking the United States with 9/11. As for the war against Kuwait along with the Kurdish uprising - the issue is more complex than simply that, however I agree of course he was a brutal dictator.

But then, the countries the west supports (which once included Iraq) are just as bad if not worse so the idea that we went in to save the people and the Kurds is a complete and utter fantasy which you know as well as I do is used to divert attention away from the false claim that Iraq had WMD.

As Enoch Powell put it in regards to Yugoslavia; it matters not whether Yugoslavia dissolves into two dozen states or a dozen states - it is not relevent to the interests of the United Kingdom. The same is applicable to Kuwait.

What has being rich got to do with anything? If he just wanted to be a rich man he would not have spent almost 25 years in politics. Money cannot buy reputation and he has been crucified by many. He believed in what he did and had the courage to do it. The American Ambassador summed up it perfectly. He said it is all very well to criticise an action with 20/20 hindsight but it does not mean that decision was not right given the times we then lived in.

It wasn't right at the time either - even if Saddam Hussein did have a nuclear weapon (which I assure you, if he did have WMD or any form of military defences then we would not have dared to invade) then so what? the Soviet Union had thousands of nuclear weapons pointing at this country and our allies for decades yet we still talked. So why you are suggesting I should be afraid of a tinpot country with no airforce, no army, no navy and no nuclear weapons capabilities? a country which has also never declared war or threatened to declare war on the United Kingdom.

I am not afraid of the nuclear-armed China, India or Pakistan who have hundreds of nuclear weapons - they rarely ever (if ever) provoke war.

Sorry Dan that would be like asking Burger King who make the best burgers - one would not get an unbiased view.

These are Tony Blairs belief - he was a centre left politician.
http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/man/lab97.htm
Murdoch is supposed to be a neo conservative but this quote I believe sums him up the best:

Murdoch is a liberal interventionalist, alike Blair.