Reply #32: The thing is that the two items are not mutually exclusive.

[salin]

No doubt in my mind that the bushies would prefer a Tory govt. And that if they have taken Blair down that path - then they view it as a two-fer... get Blair to carry the early water on trumping up the war (back in sept of 2002 when bushies couldn't look to craven per the midterms... and their credibility for pushing for war is raised when suddenly silent Tony starts talking about the grave threat from Iraq...) and get him dumped all from the same course of action.

This does not exclude, however, the complicitness of Blair in these endeavors. He could have backed away early on and pushed back to UN or no Brit support. He chose not to do that. He put his money on bush. And did so in 2002 in an effort to help bush and the GOP in the midterms. And does so now in putting a kibosh on Labour MPs showing support for Kerry - while, apparently simultaneously workng to help bush here in the US - even while it puts himself on shakey ground with the Brit public that appearts to be, by and large, not real thrilled with Bush or Tony's alliance with bush.