While everyone is busy debating The Miers Incident,
here's what the other hand is doing.
So Iran really is going to be the bad guy after all. Assuming this isn't just a random outburst - and if it is, you'd think after three and a half years in Iraq someone in authority would have noticed those Iranians doing war-pretext evil things a little sooner than than this - this could plausibly be a hint about how this one is going to be played. (More below.)
There's no need for extended comment or analysis, beyond noting that using the UK is a minor stroke of genius. It takes some of the heat off the White House, which can now appear to be disinterested and nobly devoted to furthering the cause of peace, freedom, democracy, and huge bloody piles of dead 'insurgents.'
The important question is - is BushCo really going to be this stupid?
As a first play this implies a direction, but not - mercifully - a public commitment. But it's hard not to see this as an escalation in a war of words that's intended eventually to turn into an exchange of live ammunition.
So I wonder if it's a test to see how opinion lines up. Having been to Iraq war demo in London, I cannot see Blair riding out an Iran attack. Protests would be off the scale. But I thought Iraq couldn't be justified either, so it's easy to misunderestimate the extent of stupidity among the high and mighty here.
As for Washington - who knows? With a drunken horticultural accident on the loose anything is possible.
So - we're left with is this: A charitable interpretation is that it's just a blip. A less charitable interpretation is there's strategy here, and the pieces are being lined up for the long-planned smackdown.
Which is it? Take the poll...