this was peter goldsmith's conclusions. and the fact as you say it was finely argued didn't come as any great surprise. you wouldn't need lawyers unless there were arguments. and he came to a view. and it was that view that mike boyce, kevin and i were looking for. >> thank you. one other dimension to this, you had seen the long attorney general's advice of the 7th of march. you were yourself a lawyer by training and profession. as was some of your other cabinet colleagues including the foreign secretary, indeed, the prime minister but by no means all of them. and many of your cabinet colleagues had not seen it. didn't see it. and the discussion in cabinet was based on something much shorter. it wasn't the one-liner. it was a draft of a parliamentary answer. do you think now or did you think at the time that cabinet colleagues would have wished to be led into the detailed on the one hand and on the other considerations in the attorney's full advice? >> i'm not sure that it would be appropriate for cabinet to have that kind

this was peter goldsmith's conclusion. the fact that it was, as you say finally argued, didn't come as a great surprise. you wouldn't need lawyer unless there were arguments. he came to a view and it was that view that lord boyce, kevin tebbit, and i were looking for. >> thank you. one other mention to this. you can see the long attorney general's advice, you yourself for a lawyer by training profession, as some other cabinet colleagues, and indeed the prime minister. but many of your cabinet colleagues have not seen -- didn't see it. and the discussion in cabinet was based on something much shorter. it was a draft of parliamentary answer. did you think now, or did you think at time that cabinet colleagues would have wished to be led into the detailed considerations in the attorney's full advice? >> i'm not sure that it would be appropriate forker -- for cabinet to have that kind of discussion. because in the end what you would be inviting people to do is to speculate on the legal judgment that the attorney judgment had re

difficulty was this: that 1441 had been clear and i know you went through this in enormous detail with peter goldsmith but to emphasize the point it was a very strong resolution and declared iraq was a material breach, it said that it had fully and unconditionally and immediately to cooperate and cooperate with the inspectors and so on, and it was a strong resolution. it specifically mentioned the previous resolution 678, 687 and so on. as you have heard, the truth is there was an unresolved issue. because some people, some countries, obviously, wanted to come back and only have a decision foreaction with a specific u.n. resolution specifically mandating that action. we took the view that that was not necessary but, obviously, politically it would have been far easier. >> so sir martin will be talking to you later about the legal case but from the evidence we heard from lord goldsmith, the last advice you had from him before you went off from washington, was that at that time he believed that the legal position was that we did need second resolution. >> that issue as well and that was another reason w

the reason why peter goldsmith replied was not, i do not think he was particularly concerned about the nature of my legal observations. i think was more concerned that i might be in effect boxing him and when he came to write his own opinion on the subject, and so what he wanted to avoid was that out there i had already prejudge this matter legally. but my example, as i say my letter, was about self-defense, not a justification. therefore i do not think i particularly trespassed on his area of proper legal responsibility. >> it should be understood in your interview that this was a subtle form of address. >> i was pretty -- trying pretty hard not to answer his questions. the bush a straw line for a moment under that. we're now in 2003. the invasion and our anticipation is now imminent. i think it is the seventh of march that the attorney of general -- the attorney general gives advice to the key people of the top of government. it is a finely balanced review of the arguments. it indicates the risks, it is incidentally on the risk of prosecution of service personnel -- >> and the politi