[Capn TrVth]

Hello Peeps! This ought to be a good one! I was just watching CNN, they ominously reported that Tony Blair billed the U.K. nearly $500 per year for hiis on-camera "make up", they took a worried and pensive tone when they pointed out that; The yearly average cost ROSE when he was defending the Intelligence on Iraq.

I couldn't believe what I was seeing. Now... I wondered if the Rocket Scientist that cobbled this story together ever thought for a moment that in times of war and great political controversy Blair would be required to be in fromt of cameras and doing interviews and neediong a make-up artist susbstantially more often then usual?

Then I remembered, this is CNN. They are apparently running this story from The Guardian. Other than that little tidlet. It's sure to be a great mornin' everyone! Glad to be here in such good company.

[Morgan in Denver]

It's Bush's fault. Tony Blair would not have spent as much on makeup had Bush not taken us into Iraq on a war against terrorism.

[snugs]

The left attacking the left. The Guardian is so left they probably consider Tony Blair as right wing LOL

[alnick]

Frankly, I don't think $500 a year is all that much for the services of a makeup artist for someone who routinely goes before the cameras.

Don't you love the way they claim Blair spent $3000 on makeup when the bulk of the money, or maybe all of it, went to hire makeup artists?