/////The Blair govt that actually joined the US in the war won the second landslide election in 2001 a full two years prior to the said invasion. They did not stand on a platform of going to war with Iraq hence voters can not in any way be blamed. That is too retrospective.////

That is incorrect. From the time Bush won election he wanted to go into Iraq. Here's what Paul O'Neill recalls:

And what happened at President Bush's very first National Security Council meeting is one of O'Neill's most startling revelations.

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," says O'Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

"From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime," says Suskind. "Day one, these things were laid and sealed."

As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" says O'Neill. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18560_162-592330.html

But Blair, who loudly voiced undying support and loyalty to Geroge Bush didn't know about any of this.


///Anyway we don't have presidential elections. You talk about if you voted for Blair! Only a few voters in a County Durham constituency actually voted for Blair.////

Did he not win election again in 2001 AND again 2005--well after the diasaster in Iraq was common knowledge? Is he not the longest serving prime minister as well as the youngest and the only one in the Labour party to have 3 consecutive victories in the general elections?