Explaining away the reasons for conflict

In one of his woolliest public performances in recent memory, Tony Blair tried to explain to Sir John Chilcot's panel why he took the country to war in Iraq in 2003.

From the outset Mr Blair appeared to get tangled in detail - and seemed to explain away rather than explain what happened in the run-up to war. His argument initially seemed to hinge on how 11September 2001 "changed everything" as it showed what Muslim extremists could do.

In Manhattan they killed 3,000 people, and would have killed at least 10 times with a nuclear, biological or chemical device. Therefore any developer of weapons of mass destruction was a menace "that should be dealt with". But he could not explain why Saddam Hussein became the No 1 WMD villain. He has admitted that he put "the military option" of overthrowing Saddam on the table very early on. If America decided to attack, and "the UN route" had failed, Blair told Bush in April 2002 that the Brits would be with him.

Unfortunately Blair allowed little serious preparation of British forces until the winter of 2002. The military plans in detail on a basis of ends, ways and means. Blair, as he told the panel, believed the ends justified the means, on whose detail he seems unhappily hazy. In his mind, the end was to save the world from fanatics armed with WMD. By his own testimony it seems the world Mr Blair was saving was very much a world of his own.