Lord Goldsmith's testimony at the Iraq war inquiry was exactly what I expected - a delicate balancing act whose purpose was primarily to shield his political soul-mate and chum Tony Blair from adverse criticism.
Smooth barrister and devout new Labourite that he is, Goldsmith sought to deflect attention away from the government and rebut the charge that pressure may have been exerted on him by Blair and his cronies. This suggests that his abrupt change of mind about the legality of the Iraq war was formed after a visit to the US to consult with hawkish lawyers and Condoleezza Rice.
On the previous day Sir Michael Wood, former chief legal adviser to the Foreign Office, and his then deputy Elizabeth Wilmshurst made it abundantly clear that they believed a second UN resolution was needed to legitimise the use of force.
Goldsmith tried to skirt around this issue, yet Blair, if you recall, was frantically scurrying about prior to the invasion in an effort to obtain backing for a second UN resolution which neither the permanent nor non-permanent members of the UN security council were prepared to support.
The panel of interrogators were like a terribly polite gentleman's forum and Blair ran rings round them.
Brown will hardly be quaking in his boots when his time comes.