The Iraq Inquiry Blogger looks back at Lord Goldsmith’s evidence and believes the former attorney general could have been pushed harder.
Just time for a short one tonight. The Chilcot panel has already taken evidence from several barristers, not least among them Geoff Hoon and Jack Straw (although of course neither was “an international lawyer,” as Elizabeth Wilmshurst remarked icily of Straw yesterday.
But today was arguably the greatest test for an inquiry team that has previously faced criticism for its lack of legal heavyweights.
Lord Goldsmith was once the government’s most senior legal adviser and it was his evidence that finally green-lighted the drive to war without a second UN resolution.
I have to say that I agreed with another inquiry veteran who found even the resident Columbo Sir Roderic Lyne a little more restrained that usual.
The truth be told not many a punch was landed. His 7 March and 17 March 2003 legal advice to the PM only differed because, he said, he had realised that he owed it to Our Boys and Girls to be clearer in his backing for the use of force. (Fascinating that one First Sea Lord had been so concerned about the potential for future legal action against him that he consulted his own lawyers.)
Of course there had been no improper pressure, neither from Blair nor anyone else, to firm up or rush forward his decision.
The Mail’s story alleging ‘pincer action’ by Baroness Morgan and Lord Falconer was complete and utter nonsense (although he did intriguingly concede that Lord F can be forceful).
That said the session wasn’t without its sharper moments. I predict that the joint complaint by both Chilcot and Goldsmith that the Government still won’t declassify some documents may bring results in the days to come.
B-day on Friday. Of course Blair is another former barrister, let’s see how the panel do with him.
Live Tweets from inside the Fortress QEII from 09h30.