US: Controversy over undiscovered WMD has cast a shadow over the Prime Minister's trip, writes Frank Millar, London Editor.
Tony Blair knows his Bible and will be familiar with Matthew's Gospel in which Jesus speaks of the prophet only being without honour in his own house. Indeed such thoughts may occur to him today as he flies to Washington for what would seem a crowning moment in any British premiership.
Only Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher before him have been awarded the accolade of an invitation to address both Houses of Congress. Yet there will be at least as much embarrassment as celebration in the ranks of Mr Blair's Labour Party back home. Vast numbers of Labourites regard President Bush as the spawn of Satan. And they will cringe at the promise of a Congressional Medal of Honour still to come - for them the ultimate reward for Mr Blair's unquestioning support of a neo-Conservative conspiracy to re-fashion the world order by means most foul.
Whatever opportunities they see in the post-conflict fallout to undermine President Bush, the Democrats will come together with the Republicans to salute the man who stood "shoulder to shoulder" with them through the dark hours of September 11th and the ensuing campaign in Afghanistan, to war in Iraq and the toppling of arguably the world's greatest despot.
However, Republican and Democrat alike will be conscious of the mounting challenge on both sides of the Atlantic to the justification for war undertaken by the President and Prime Minister without the approval of the United Nations. Both men in turn will be conscious of the embarrassing differences which have opened up between their intelligence agencies over the British insistence that Iraq sought uranium from Niger in pursuit of its attempt to develop nuclear weapons. And the accompanying British press pack can certainly be relied upon to remind Mr Blair of the mounting domestic unease about the position of at least two Britons facing military trial, and possible execution, in the legal black-hole known as Guantanamo Bay.
The current indications are that the Blair government may find itself in something of a black-hole on this issue: unable to guarantee to try these and other illegal combatants, as the Americans describe them, because the evidence against them (and the means used to extract it) would not stand up in the British courts. To leave their fate to an American decision, on the other hand, will provoke a fresh chorus of ridicule from Mr Blair's critics, who are making this a test of the prime minister's much-vaunted influence in the "special relationship".
Mr Blair faced them in the Commons yesterday for the last Prime Minister's Questions before the parliamentary recess. Again, Iraq cast its dark shadow over the proceedings. One Labour backbencher suggested Britain was in breach of UN Resolution 1441 for failing to refer the claimed intelligence about Niger to the International Atomic Energy Agency for verification. Tory leader Mr Iain Duncan Smith, meanwhile, joined in the government's ongoing battle with the BBC, accusing Mr Blair and his communications director, Mr Alastair Campbell, of creating "a culture of deceit and spin" at the heart of government.
Later the Conservative foreign affairs spokesman, Mr Michael Ancram, led a Commons debate on Iraq, renewing demands for an independent inquiry into intelligence assessments of Iraqi weaponry and the handling of them prior to war.
Mr Blair for his part is openly contemptuous of the Conservative position, accusing Mr Duncan Smith of "opportunism worthy of the Liberal Democrats" in challenging the government now over a war he himself had advocated from the outset. And while some anti-war critics thought Mr Duncan Smith enjoyed some success, Mr Blair did not in truth look like a man under siege.
Sticking to his September guns, Mr Blair noted the emerging interim Iraqi authority and the evidence of mass graves to affirm his conviction that the allies had done "the right thing" in ridding the world of Saddam Hussein. As for those still-elusive Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Mr Blair told MPs they should await the findings of the Iraq Survey Group and judge the issue "on the basis of the evidence and not speculation". Inside Number 10 it is acknowledged that Iraq, and the still-undiscovered WMD, are contributing to Mr Blair's growing "trust" problem. Close aides contend this should be seen in the wider context of a growing public disaffection with politics and politicians generally. However, the polls show sharply falling support for the war, with more than half of voters telling the Populus survey that they would not trust the prime minister further than they could throw him.
Against that, most polls can be read any number of ways. There is no emerging majority (yet) suggesting Mr Blair deliberately misled the country. He is still considered to have the best skills for the job, and commands the approval of a majority of Labour supporters. Moreover, while the Conservatives are running neck-and-neck with Labour, they are nowhere near the ratings (40-plus) necessary at the midway point in a parliament to fuel a realistic hope of victory at the next election.
Blair aides may also have a point in suggesting that the current levels of disaffection owe something to the fact that for a full year the British public has heard from Mr Blair on Iraq to the virtual exclusion of the domestic issues upon which election outcomes traditionally turn.
Mr Blair is certain Saddam represented a serious threat to his region and the world, and appears equally confident evidence of WMD "programmes" and "product" will be uncovered. It is impossible to overestimate the extent of the damage to him should the evidence fail to materialise. However, the refusal of his advisers to address the possibility appears to betoken confidence rather than fear.
It is the same confidence which saw Mr Blair yesterday widen his defence and signal a counter-offensive against a British left, now led by Mr Robin Cook, which was happy to join President Clinton's bombing campaign against Iraq but somewhat absurdly now appears ready to oppose any intervention supported by his successor.