Authoritative, forensic, passionate and filled with self-belief, the British Prime Minister, Mr Tony Blair, acquitted himself well yesterday - certainly in the eyes of many of those who watched his performance at the Hutton Inquiry first hand, and in the view of many others who examined from a distance what he said.
The words used by commentators to describe Mr Blair will no doubt please him. The image he projected from the witness box was that of a man, the leader of a government, concerned about truth, integrity and credibility; a man who not only wanted to do the right thing but also to be seen to do the right thing. By contrast, his Defence Secretary, Mr Geoff Hoon, who gave evidence on Wednesday, came across as a minister in charge of a department in which he took no decisions, and who was consequently responsible for nothing that happened. As one British newspaper quipped: "What is Hoon for?" Far from falling on his sword to save his Prime Minister, as some had predicted, Mr Hoon seemed to be pleading for a fool's pardon. As a strategy to save his political career, it appeared braver than anything else he has done in office. Whether it succeeds is another matter.
Mr Blair, as is his style, was more articulate, more combative. While it was not an unprecedented occasion (John Major, Mr Blair's Conservative Party predecessor in 10 Downing Street, gave evidence to the Scott Inquiry), it is not every day that a serving prime minister is made to answer questions in front of a law lord about events of governance that occurred mere weeks previously. Even in the age of instant recall, the inquiry has cast a bright light on the inner workings of Downing Street that feels more American than British.
For his part yesterday, Mr Blair acknowledged that, as head of government, he had to - and did - accept responsibility. As to the essence of the BBC charge - that his office had exaggerated, or "sexed up", the extent of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons (yet to be found almost a full three months after the end of major hostilities) - Mr Blair made clear to Lord Hutton the depth of his feeling. "This was an attack that went not just to the heart of the office of the Prime Minister but also the way intelligence services operated. It went, in a sense, to the credibility, I felt, of the country." If true, he would have had to resign.
If Lord Hutton accepts - broadly - the explanation advanced by the Prime Minister, it may be that the parties to emerge worst from this tragic saga will be the BBC (the main reporter Mr Andrew Gilligan and the senior managers who backed him) and Dr David Kelly, the ministry of defence scientist whose apparent suicide prompted the inquiry. There are certainly grounds for suggesting it was the BBC who "sexed up" its information, and that Dr Kelly, in seeming to say one thing to journalists and another thing to his employers, contributed significantly to the stress he undoubtedly felt shortly before his death. But these are matters upon which Lord Hutton will have the final word.