A Guardian article last month quotes from a book by Peter Stothard, a journalist (ex-editor of The Times) sympathetic to Bliar, who followed him closely during the Iraq war:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,998776,00.htmlThe fundamental points were:
· Gulf war 2 - President George W Bush v Saddam Hussein - would happen whatever anyone else said or did.
· The people of Britain, continental Europe and most of the rest of the world would not even begin to support a war unless they had a say in it through the UN.
· It would be more damaging to longterm world peace and security if the Americans alone defeated Saddam Hussein than if they had international support to do so.
I think that, starting from that, he decided to spin Iraq into as big a threat as possible, to convince, at least temporarily, Britain, Europe and the UN Security Council voters. He particularly needed a UN vote to give some justification under the UN charter. The ambiguity of the UN resolution got everyone to vote for it, and then Bush could go ahead, cutting short the time the inspectors asked for, and claiming military force had already been authorised (Blair would have liked the second UN vote to make that explicit, but it became clear he couldn't swing that).
He's also too trusting of American politicians (and that also goes for Brown, his most likely successor). He seems blind to the purely self-serving policies of the Bush administration, and ends up struggling to get basic human rights for British citizens, signing unequal extradition treaties, watching Halliburton get lucrative but incompetently-managed contracts, and so on.
The people who've got to the top of British politics just haven't had the combination of greed and self-righteousness Blair now finds in Bush et al. He's a little out of his depth.