Blair's Return To Chilcott - Fall of Another Pariah Leader?

From the FT today.

Tony Blair has been served scores of searching and detailed questions ahead of his second appearance at the Iraq inquiry on Friday, in an indication of the more forensic approach expected at the hearing.

While his Labour party is no longer in power, the protesters more sparse and the session half as long, the former prime minister is braced for a more bruising and testy encounter than his defiant performance on the witness stand last year.

The themes will be familiar: the alleged misuse of intelligence; claims of “secret” promises to the US; the legality of the conflict; the process for taking the most important decisions; and the stunning lack of preparation for the aftermath of war.

But Sir John Chilcot’s panel will not this time even attempt to cover all points of contention arising in the five-year period. Instead, Mr Blair will be asked to fill in gaps or explain discrepancies identified by the committee as it enters the final stages of producing its report.

Scores of these questions have been sent to Mr Blair ahead of the hearing – an attempt to elicit some more precise answers from a formidable public speaker whose “big picture” responses last year infuriated some panel members.

One Whitehall source familiar with the inquiry predicted the tone would “certainly” be different. “They’re going for him this time,” he said. “It is going to be much tougher.”

The hearing comes amid signs of growing tensions between Mr Blair and the Chilcot panel. A few weeks after testifying, Mr Blair told a US television interviewer that the inquiry was humouring the desire of the British public to “uncover some great conspiracy”.

Sir John has expressed his “disappointment” at the Cabinet Office blocking the publication of “critical” extracts of Mr Blair’s correspondence with then-president George W. Bush – a decision Mr Blair was consulted on.

The frustration for the inquiry is that this will prevent Mr Blair being questioned directly on how commitments made in these letters tally with the former prime minister’s public statements.

In a pointed remark that underlines the frustrations, Sir John said: “Given Mr Blair’s decision to disclose some of the content [of the letters] in [his memoir], the committee is likely to be disappointed if he is less forthcoming in his evidence to us.”

As he prepares for the half-day inquiry session, Mr Blair will be looking over the new evidence gathered since his testimony, which includes some uncomfortable assessments from former colleagues.

Lord Goldsmith, the former attorney-general, made clear that Mr Blair at one point contradicted legal advice in arguing that Britain could still invade Iraq without explicit backing from the UN.

Lady Manningham-Buller, the former head of MI5, spoke of Mr Blair’s gamble in confronting the “very limited” threat posed by Saddam Hussein, in spite of being warned that invading Iraq would “substantially” increase the terrorist threat to the UK.

But beyond the detail, Mr Blair will also be considering his tone, and whether a more contrite approach may help defuse some lingering anger.