See the post preceding yours, which makes it clearly untrue. This is what my new friend the ai chatbot has to say on the subject:-

"There were several criticisms and controversies surrounding the decision-making process and actions of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair regarding the Iraq War. Here are some key points:

Intelligence and WMD claims: One major controversy was the assertion that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), which was one of the main justifications for the war. The intelligence used to support these claims was later found to be flawed, leading to questions about the accuracy and presentation of the information by the Blair government.

Legal justifications: There were debates about the legality of the Iraq War under international law. The United Nations Security Council did not pass a resolution explicitly authorizing the use of force, leading some legal experts and critics to argue that the war was illegal.

Lack of post-war planning: Another criticism leveled against Blair's government was the inadequate planning for the post-war period, which contributed to the instability and sectarian violence that followed the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime.

Public and political support: The decision to go to war in Iraq was highly controversial and faced significant opposition from the public and within Blair's own Labour Party. The lack of a robust public debate and the perception that Blair was too closely aligned with the United States on the issue also drew criticism.

The Chilcot Inquiry: In 2009, the UK government established the Chilcot Inquiry to examine the UK's involvement in the Iraq War. The inquiry's final report, published in 2016, criticized the government's decision-making process, stating that Blair had overstated the threat posed by Iraq and had not exhausted all peaceful alternatives before resorting to military action.

While these points represent some of the criticisms and controversies surrounding Tony Blair's actions and decisions related to the Iraq War, it is important to note that perspectives on this issue can vary widely, and there are differing opinions on the extent of any misdeeds or wrongdoings."

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

A good point about Corbyn's marginalisation by just about everybody.

And by no means does it mean he was all wrong.

First item on the Corbyn agenda - return to public ownership of the water industry, a tory privatisation catastrophe.

Few people would not see that now, I suspect.

It doesn't look like thee is much choice with Starmer.

When you think about it seriously. Johnson has been replaced by Sunak via Truss without any genuine democratic process.

Trump was ousted by a term long media campaign and some dodgy voting patterns. Now they have ousted Boris from Parliament and are trying to stop Trump running with some spurious charges.

Who is ultimately responsible? How high up the chain does it go, and who is at the top of that chain?

Where are Mulder and Scully when you need them?

Seriously, there is clearly an agenda which seems to relate to various aspects of global politics which includes promoting mass immigration, stirring divisive race issues and introducing more control over the masses with less democracy.

Well he's better than the tories, but so is anybody.

Caroline Lucas resigns - gives up - the best PM we never had?

Relevant, modern, focussed on the issues that matter most, didnt really stand a chance at Westminster.

Thanks for trying.

If that is your interpretation, then you clearly see things in one dimension.

Ask yourself what other politicians have got away with that we know nothing about, and why we know so much about these alleged misdemeanours.

Do you think Trump would be facing these charges if he wasn't planning to run next time, or if Johnson would have been removed had he been a Remainer.

It's good to see straightforward common sense posted here.

I hope this marks the end of populist politics on both sides of the Atlantic, but I fear not. Trump could still run, even if in prison, though I doubt whether it will get that far before the election process begins. More likely any campaign will be impacted by a need to be in Court and his chances damaged by the revelations.

Johnson, like Trump, believes he is the only answer and his behaviour is unimportant froth. He will continue to make noise, but I hope the Tory Party remove his membership and ditch the right for good. It's the only way they have any chance of recovering.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.