I suppose to say "What's new?" doesn't contribute much to the debate...

I can, however predict the government's arguments:

"Blair had to keep his mouth shut because military action would need to be swift and include an element of surprise which can be easily ruined when newspapers start talking about it. He could also cite fear of further terror attacks in the UK as another reason to keep plans of aggression secret."

The legal issue could be an interesting one if it can be proved than the UK intelligence agencies stayed out of it completely and there was never any (fabricated or not) evidence of WMDs at Saddam's grubby eager fingertips. This will remove the only self-defence angle Blair has to defend his decision.

That being said, if i'm not mistaken Parliament would have had to approve going to war, which would make them all accomplices.

To add to the hilarity, of course, is the timing of the inquiry. Waiting until Blair could no longer be elected to be EU president (that was his intention, I believe?) was inspired. Why not inquire 6 months into the war? Why not 1 year? Why not after Saddam was captured? Or after the first british casualty?