Seldom have the tables been turned so spectacularly. "[Tuesday\] was a test of policy and he failed it. Today is a test of character and he failed it too."
This was Tony Blair taunting Tory leader Michael Howard on the day which some had hoped would see his premiership collapse.
With the benefit of that leak to the Sun - and having had six hours to read Lord Hutton's report and satisfy himself as to its accuracy - Mr Howard knew it was all over before it ever began. Not only was Mr Blair in the clear; so too were former communications director Alastair Campbell and the Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) John Scarlett , as well as the usually beleaguered Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon.
Mr Howard had made the mistake of pre-judging the Judge, and the honeymoon which had so revitalised the Conservative Parliamentary Party seemed suddenly at an end. This was far better than Mr Blair could ever have hoped. And worse - much, much worse - than the BBC could ever have imagined.
The irony was not lost on some Tories - given their role as cheerleaders for the war in Iraq - that Lord Hutton yesterday delivered such a powerful boost to those supporting Mr Blair's alliance with President Bush and such a wholly unexpected reversal for Britain's anti-war party.
"Unfounded" declared the delighted premier time and again, echoing Lord Hutton's rejection of BBC reports which ensured world-wide reach for allegations that the British Prime Minister had lied about the intelligence on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
"Unfounded" too the charge that Mr Campbell had "sexed-up" the government's Iraqi weapons dossier and over-ruled the intelligence services by ordering the insertion of doubtful intelligence probably knowing it to be wrong.
And equally without foundation the suggestion that Mr Blair, Mr Campbell, Mr Hoon et al had conspired to leak the name of former government scientist Dr David Kelly as the suspected BBC "mole", so ensuring his public humiliation and contributing to the misery and distress which drove him to suicide.
"There was no dishonourable, underhand or duplicitous strategy by the government covertly to leak Dr Kelly's name to the media," declared Lord Hutton from the Royal Courts of Justice when he finally got to deliver his long-awaited report.
The government had acted "reasonably" in issuing a statement in July last year confirming that a suspected source (still unnamed) had come forward to admit unauthorised contact with Today Defence Correspondent Andrew Gilligan - a contact conducted in breach of civil service rules. The government's view that Dr Kelly's name would inevitably become public was "well founded" - as was its fear that it would be accused of a cover-up if found to have withheld that information from two ongoing parliamentary inquiries.
Early on Lord Hutton thought it would be possible to make a case for a covert naming strategy. This was when the focus was on subsequent Number 10 briefings narrowing the field of suspects and the MoD's 'Question and Answer' approach, by which it would confirm the identity of the source if journalists came up with the right name. But in the end he rejected the suggestion by the Kelly family's counsel that this was a strategy to get the name out without appearing to do so.
Former Conservative Foreign Secretary Malcolm Rifkind latched-on to this, suggesting many would feel free to draw the opposite conclusion. However Mr Howard clearly felt no such freedom. He had opened his Commons attack on Mr Blair by signalling he accepted Lord Hutton's conclusions. And he only compounded his difficulty by then proceeding to repeat earlier charges, while himself making much of Lord Hutton's observation that Mr Blair's wish for the dossier to make a persuasive case might have "subconsciously influenced" Mr Scarlett to put the document in stronger terms.
These were meagre pickings. Lord Hutton concluded the JIC had retained "overall control" of the dossier; that it was not improper for Mr Campbell to make suggestions on its drafting and that Mr Scarlett ensured changes were made only when compatible with the intelligence available.
In a withering indictment of the BBC, Lord Hutton condemned Mr Gilligan's reporting; a "defective" editorial system which allowed his original report to go on air without being checked; and the failure of BBC management and the Board of Governors to properly investigate the government's complaints and their journalist's work before defending it.
It was, as they say, "game, set and match" for Mr Blair, which last night claimed the scalp of the Chairman of the BBC's Board of Governors amid speculation that other heads might roll following their meeting tonight.
Yet while there was undoubted satisfaction inside Number 10, it was described as "strangely muted." This is understandable in personal terms alone. Mr Blair (and his officials) have had a torrid time - culminating in near-defeat in the Commons on Tuesday night. His deep personal anger at having his integrity impugned has undoubtedly fuelled his fight for vindication in the government's battle with the BBC.
And he is not, as Robin Cook was quick to remind him, out of the woods yet. For notwithstanding yesterday's day of triumph, Lord Hutton himself reminded us that his brief was quite restricted. He was able to acquit Mr Blair of the grievous charge that he took the country to war on the basis of a lie, and on the strength of intelligence he knew to be dodgy.
But as to whether that intelligence was of such a quality as to justify war - this was a question outside the former Law Lord's terms of reference. And if Britain's war party feels vindicated, there will be no lessening of the disquiet in Labour ranks at finding their leader's interests so closely tied to that of a Republican president in an election year.