Lies, damn lies, and lawyers
"I don't believe Blair was a war criminal based on the evidence provided to date ..."
I do, on the basis that he treated Parliament like a courtroom, delivering a case for the prosecution exactly as if he was engaged by one side in an adversarial encounter. This is what happens when you allow lawyers to enter Parliament - and why we desperately need more MPs with a scientific background.
Lawyers are trained to argue the case for their side, and therefore to disengage any objectivity or sense of natural justice which they might otherwise possess. Once Blair chose to be effectively retained by the Bush/Cheney axis on Iraq, it was inevitable that he would argue the case for the war they wanted using every scrap of evidence which supported his case, but carefully ignoring, or seeking to discredit, every scrap of evidence which might count against it. This enabled him to ignore the highly public and well-evidenced findings of the UN on the issue of Saddam's WMD (or lack thereof), while asserting the truth of his "dodgy dossier".
I'm no expert on war crimes law, but he was definitely guilty of lying to Parliament by any meaningful definition of the term, and by doing so he obtained authorisation to order lethal military action against a foreign power. That's a criminal offence under UK law, if not at The Hague - and I don't particularly care where he stands trial, as long as it happens somewhere.
@Lucrolout: you are not the only one with champagne waiting in the fridge - but I have two bottles. My own Labour constituency MP, for whom I voted in 97, wrote in a letter to me that she "would have the greatest difficulty" supporting a vote in Parliament for military action in Iraq without a second UN Security Council resolution to back such action. Two weeks later, after Blair had failed to obtain a second resolution, she did exactly that. So the other bottle awaits her demise.