Faced with the poisonous drip of damning evidence against the credibility of Blair's WMD claims to the Chilcot enquiry, he has launched a pre-emptive strike to steal the thunder of Chilcot's inevitable findings. "Yes of course the WMD thing was a sham" Blair almost says "but we needed a reason to do the right thing".
This false candour, I suspect, will work with more than a few people. The reality of course is that Blair is lying again; the leopard can't change his spots. His contention that he would have 'deployed different arguments' to remove Saddam had anyone been able to prove he made-up the WMDs at the time is specious.
In the absence of WMDs military action would have been unlawful. The Attorney General would have had to say so. The CGS would have refused to deploy. Blair's back benchers would have deserted him during a crucial vote and the UK would not have gone to war. The US, unencumbered by the recognition of international law, would have acted alone.
In other words, the outcome Blair wanted - the removal of Saddam - would have happened anyway without his having to lie about WMDs, and without the UK's involvement. To this extent Blair does indeed have blood on his hands - blood shed, it now seems certain, not for the UK but for the benefit of the USA, Blair's adopted home, and at his mendacious connivance.
If Chilcot makes only one thing clear, it should be this.