Those pressures explain the Attorney General's change of view. The truth is that the war was probably not legal under international law. Those who believe that is a fact of cardinal moral importance have not yet had the courage to admit the inevitable conclusion of their position. It is that there now needs to be a "coalition of the willing" to restore the legal government of Saddam Hussein to its rightful position as the sovereign authority in Iraq. Tony Blair must be arrested and tried by the ICC, and Saddam should be the primary witness against him. That is the inescapable logic of the champions of international law. It should make every-one realise how unreal is the world in which they live.
Though I agree with most of the conclusion, the author missed one critical point. In the law, fraud is a defense to almost anything. France, Russia, China, and the UN were not acting in good faith when they voted against the war. The oil-for-food program was the greatest, most successful, and most lethal fraud in world history. Saddam bought the world and almost isolated the United States. Saddam having bought three nations on the UN Security Council, I think it's only fair to say the 'judge' in 'international law' should have recused itself.