I guess all that hot air in your last paragraph, Teribus, is some kind of admission that Saddam never posed a threat to the UK and that Blair hever had cause to think otherwise.

I'm not sure how it helps your argument, but UNSCR1441 was indeed drafted by UK diplomats, Carne Ross included.

As for the rest of your outpourings above, why do you bother? The facts are simple. Bush Jnr wanted Saddam out because of what he and Cheney perceived as unfinished business by Bush Snr. Regime change, pure and simple. Blair wanted to be Bush's buddy (like he is desperate to ingratiate himself with absolutely anyone with wealth or influence) but he couldn't admit the regime-change objective because that's illegal. And unlike the US, the UK is not quite big enough to flout the law at will. Thus, WMD and waffle like "threat to international peace and stability" had to be invoked.

Your tortured analysis - or was it Blair's? I don't remember him presenting it as you did - about why Iraq was chosen rather than some other candidate state, is a distraction at best. It is not a convincing case that Iraq was more deserving of destruction than (say) North Korea, and it does not begin to address why it was necessary to find ANY nation on which to vent spleen.

For Blair it was simply a case of whatever lie would do the job. Did you not hear what he said to Fern Britton, Teribus?

He explained the Britton interview to Chilcot with a laboured little joke to the effect that even he, consumately media-savvy as he is, could still be ensnared by a tenacious, briefed-to-the-hilt investigative journo like Fern Britton. LOL.

But what was his mistake? To tell her a lie, or to tell her the truth? Alas, he didn't attempt to say. So do share that with us, Teribus.