Iraq report derails Blair's campaign

Prime Minister Tony Blair has made a robust televised defence of his decision to go to war with Iraq, rebuffing criticism raised by the release of a secret memo from his top legal adviser warning of the legal consequences of invading without a second United Nations resolution.

Blair's political opponents said the two-year-old memo from Attorney-General Lord Goldsmith - released by the Government on Thursday after it was leaked to the media - showed the Prime Minister had deceived Britain.

Blair fervently denied that charge during a television appearance.

"For the past few days it's been said that the Attorney-General advised that it was illegal to go to war," Blair told the audience at a BBC panel programme.

"He didn't. He advised it was lawful."

In a spectacular u-turn, Downing St published a 13-page memo written by Lord Goldsmith on March 7, 2001, including crucial caveats about military action that were omitted from his final legal advice approving the war 10 days later.

The two documents differ markedly. In the 13-page March 7 memo, Goldsmith said existing UN Security Council resolutions provided "a reasonable case" for military action, but advised that a new resolution authorising force would be the "safest legal course". That resolution never came.

On March 17, Goldsmith advised Parliament that "authority to use force against Iraq exists from the combined effect of [Security Council] resolutions 678, 687 and 1441".

On a dramatic day dubbed "Wobbly Thursday" at Labour headquarters, Blair again saw his election campaign derailed by Iraq. He gambled that, by revealing the memo he has kept secret for two years, Labour would be able to return to the economy and public services in the run-up to next Thursday's election.

Some Labour insiders now regret the full advice was not published with the Butler report last July instead of in the heat of an election, which has allowed the Tories to portray Blair as a "liar" and boosted the prospects of the Liberal Democrats, the only main party to oppose the war.

If the controversy continues into next week, Labour officials fear it could cost the party dozens of marginal seats.

Last night, there was little sign that Blair's attempt to "clear the decks" had calmed the storm. Anti-war MPs claimed that the Commons - and even the Cabinet - might not have backed the conflict if they had been told about Lord Goldsmith's doubts. They said there was still no explanation about why he changed his mind.

Blair insisted: "The key thing was the Attorney-General's advice that it was lawful to proceed. This so-called smoking gun has turned out to be a damp squib because he did advise it was lawful to proceed."

While a new UN resolution was preferable, it was not essential, so the crucial decision for the Cabinet on March 17 was not legal but political, he said.

Appearing alongside Blair at a press conference, the Chancellor Gordon Brown and the Trade and Industry Secretary Patricia Hewitt admitted they were not shown the March 7 document but insisted that there was a proper Cabinet discussion of the legal and political implications of going to war.

Brown said: "Once and for all, the myth that there was no Cabinet involvement in this discussion should be set aside. Not only did we have the data available to us, but we had the opportunity to quiz the Attorney-General on every aspect of it. And I know that there were questions asked of him and replies given by him."

But that version of events was contradicted by Clare Short, the former International Development Secretary, who is sticking to her claim that no discussion of the Attorney-General's final advice was allowed at the meeting. 

LEAK DISGUISED AND DAMAGING

The leak of the Attorney-General's secret advice to Tony Blair was clearly targeted to inflict maximum damage and blow Labour's election campaign off the rails. Copies of Lord Goldsmith's conclusions were rewritten before being faxed to avoid any possibility of a leaks inquiry tracking the source.

The document caused consternation inside the BBC when it arrived on the desk of a senior executive. Attempts were made by a senior BBC correspondent to verify the authenticity of the fax.

With the wounds still fresh over the Andrew Gilligan claims that triggered the Hutton inquiry and led to the resignations of the Director General and Chairman of the BBC in 2003, senior staff did not wish to fall foul of a hoax in the middle of an election.

Other copies of the document were sent to the offices of the Guardian and Channel Four News. Some sources suggested that the document had been leaked directly to a senior BBC official, which might suggest that it came from a high-level Government or Civil Service source. This was not confirmed by the BBC.

However, in the Labour campaign headquarters, the finger was being pointed at the Tories. They noted that the leak was co-ordinated - not something which is usually done by a disgruntled individual in a freelance operation - and cleverly targeted for maximum effect. Never before in recent memory had a leak caused such mayhem in an election.

Alastair Campbell, Labour's campaign strategist, decided to kill the leak, and ministers ordered the document to be published in full. It would have been necessary anyway under the Freedom of Information Act, once the conclusions had been put in the public domain.

TORIES EXPLOIT MISTRUST

the Tories have moved to exploit the Blair Government's discomfort over Iraq by linking the controversy to tax and immigration.

With less than a week to the election, the party plans a fresh effort to undermine public trust and confidence in Tony Blair.

One thousand posters will be put up in marginal seats across the country featuring a picture of the Prime Minister. It reads: "Iraq. Stealth taxes. Immigration. It's now or never to tell him what you think."

With campaigning becoming increasingly personalised, Blair's face also appears on 2000 Tory posters with the slogan: "Imagine another five years of him."

Michael Howard said that the issue of Iraq "boils down to one very simple question: if you cannot trust Mr Blair on the decision to take the country to war, the most important decision that any Prime Minister can take, how can you trust Mr Blair on anything else, ever again?"

The Tory leader faces a tricky dilemma, as he supported the invasion and, according to party insiders, believes removing Saddam Hussein was sufficient justification for the war. He has also been privately warned that changing his stance on the issue could be damaging with the voters.

But yesterday Howard said he still believed the war was right but "nobody in their right minds today" would vote for the Commons resolution authorising it.

- AGENCIES and INDEPENDENT