It’s not a question of why one did (Blair) and one didn’t (Cameron) but the fact that the former is tarnished where the latter is not despite both agreeing to back the USA in a war one in Iraq and one in Syria. I think it is fair to put this under a topic about the actions of one which would have been duplicated by another.
I hope I don’t have to dumb it down again for you but I can Blair bad by winning the vote and Cameron not by losing the vote. With regards the latter this was actually helped by Blair because it highlighted the problems of going into the Middle East, so much so that Parliament did not have the stomach to do so again.
I don’t have any acquaintances on here because unlike you I don’t know or claim to know them even a little bit I leave that to you because that is your modus operandi.

Why wouldn't the former be tarnished? The "evidence" / "intelligence" he presented to the house in order to obtain the backing for military action was not correct.
Maybe if Cameron had presented some fictitious evidence he may have won the vote.

Poor poor effort at defending Blair 1/10.

Even he couldn't defend the indefensible, just simply a pathetic attempt at trying to deflect from the embarrassment of the former Labour leader by including Cameron, your 1/10 is quite fair, I assume it's for predictability and not for the lack of substance.

If any 'sorting out' was done it was on BOTH sides of the divide, and most of it was done by the late Mo Mowlem, Blair swanned in to take the credit pretty much as it was a done deal.

Is this another of your American euphemisms?
The term acquaintances was tongue in cheek as I know your known as Billy no mates apart from lebron whom I'm sure you'll deny knowing anyway, just an observation really, but I notice your still in denial

It's hard to offer balanced "evidence" with the US presidents hand up you rear end.
Let's face it, there isn't a UK PM that would defy the US, not of any political persuasion, apart from the maybe the Lib Dems but, they will never have to make the call.
It's the price that "we" pay for having their "protection".

If they say jump, it's just a matter of how high.

The daily Evidence" of WMD was just embarrassing and it's no surprise that, even now, nothing had been discovered.

Hugh Grant defied the US !!! Does that count?

Unfortunately for Blair, many people will only remember him for the WMD fiasco.

Below is a post from an acquaintance of yours even though you deny having any, he has a penchant for NBA players, another one of his is Steph Curry hope that helps

To be an acquaintance needs me to know him or her a little bit but your posts suggest this fits you better than me squire and once again you are deflecting from your own shortcomings and not staying on topic, naughty, naughty.

Whoah, hang on, hang on.
Did you just accuse somebody else of "pathetically trying to deflect" attention from a politician?

The irony meter has just exploded!

He is RLFANS king of whataboutery

And what is your claim to fame exactly?, besides the obvious.

Your not as dumb as you appear to be at times, well worked out btw.