With Tony Blair due to give evidence at the Iraq Inquiry, the FPA today welcomed Philippe Sands QC and Jon Snow to discuss the questionx he should be asked.
First, and assuming he would have access to documentary evidence at the time, he would ask about the motivation for going to war in Iraq. He would take the former PM through the inconsistencies of his arguments: was it WMD, was it regime change, was it for humanitarian reasons and so on.
Secondly, he would want to question Mr Blair about the intelligence that was available to him in 2001, 2002 and 2003.
Thirdly, there were the legal issues. Why, for instance, leave it so late to get legal advice? Specifically, what were the circumstances in which the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith was present at 10 Downing Street on the 13th March 2003, resulting immediately thereafter in the commissioning of a group of individuals to write a revised view made public four days later on March 17th?
Finally, he would put questions about the post invasion consequences. It appeared blindingly obvious there had been no serious post war planning. We know Tony Blair was given advice from his own Foreign Office about the potential civil strife that would follow an invasion. Did he read it? Why did he not bring it to the American Presidentís attention?
Philippe Sands did not think the Iraq Inquiry was sufficiently robust and independent to achieve the key aims of getting at the truth and helping to rebuild trust in Government -- Christopher Wyld