If one has listened carefully to the President, he has said over and over again that he wants UN support (approval), but that if necessary he will lead a "coalition of the willing." That essentially means Great Britain. It also means that the President long ago accepted the premise that the United States cannot act alone for a variety of reasons.
If, due to domestic political pressure, Tony Blair found himself unable to support George Bush, then what? Chirac's real target is Blair, whom the French SOB is trying to bring to heel so that France and Germany can continue to dominate the EU (and, at some point down the road, their hope is to replace the U.S. as the world's dominant power). At the moment, Bush and Blair are badly losing the public relations war. And I do mean badly. Trust me on this point as I know whereof I speak when it comes to PR. This hurts both of them, but Blair first and perhaps worse.
The United States would, in pratical terms, be going it alone if we went into Iraq without Great Britain. None of us on this forum should underestimate the grave risks involved should events transpire in that way. And I'm not talking about military risks, but risks from a possible French-led international coalition against us.
My point is that we cannot keep sitting around giving France and the UN time to come around. As the President, himself, said, time is not on our side. The President is soon going to have to make the choice of whether or not to go or back down.
I do not think Blair is going to pull out. If he does, he looks weak at home and puts Britain on the list of non-helpfuls (which I am certain Bush is keeping).
Keep this in mind: if we can monitor Iraqi phone calls, as Powell showed in the UN, what makes you think we can't monitor French and German calls as well?
I think everyone needs to look at the track record of this administration and have a little more confidence.