The British Prime Minister's belief in his own world view has been affirmed, writes Frank Millar
So, will they still cast the British Prime Minister as presidential "poodle"? Or might it now be allowed that Tony Blair is a force for good; that he continues a necessary and desirable British tradition of punching above its weight on the international stage; and that he carries real clout and influence with the Bush White House?
For those who still don't get it, the presence of President Bush at Hillsborough Castle would suggest a timely reassessment of a Prime Minister who has defied public opinion, acted on belief, taken huge risks with his premiership and his government, and prepared to face the consequences.
At the very least, critics might concede that the leader of the free world hasn't travelled to Belfast while his troops encircle Baghdad simply as a goodwill gesture to a friend some would have us believe is privately viewed in Washington as little more than a handy diplomatic fig-leaf for an essentially American action.
Indeed, while American forces tighten their grip on the Iraqi capital, the news of the major advance in Basra should put paid to any sneering suggestion that British troops are bit-part players in this war. Events in Basra are crucial to what happens in the capital itself.
Moreover, it is clear that Turkey's refusal to open the way for the coalition significantly increased the scale and nature of the British commitment, not least in the area of special operations continuing out of view of the television cameras and bringing the added pressures of the 24-hour news cycle.
Mr Blair has committed himself, his government and his country's armed forces big-time. Hence the growing expectation in Britain that he must be seen to win visible reward in terms of influence over what comes after conflict; in the reconstruction of Iraq and the promise that the eagerly awaited "road map" will actually deliver a peace settlement in the Middle East.
As President Bush flew in to Belfast the latest YouGov poll for the Daily Telegraph recorded British support for the war on Iraq at its highest level yet, while also registering grave doubts about the perceived US determination to dominate the post-war settlement.
Mr Blair might want to note that 55 per cent of Britons regard as "totally outrageous" claims that some reconstruction contracts have already been awarded to American companies without companies from other countries, including Britain, being given a chance to bid. Of such resentments are potential domestic political difficulties born.
At the same time it seems to Mr Blair's further credit that these are not the sort of calculations which drive him. Indeed it is frequently said that what impresses Washington insiders most is that he makes commitments and stands by them without seeking obvious return.
Downing Street spokesmen might be over-egging the pudding when they express the hope that today's discussion on Northern Ireland might help convince the President of what might be accomplished in the Middle East.
But they are undoubtedly right when they say that his focus on the future underlines the Prime Minister's conviction that politics is about changing things for the better.
Friends of Israel will not like the read-across from Northern Ireland. Many supporters in Britain and the US indeed think the Irish peace process the antithesis of the US response to the events of September 11th. Ordinary Israelis will resent the implication by so many on the British left that they have any less of an interest in a genuine peace settlement, as their government attacks Mr Blair for suggesting that achieving a solution in the Middle East is as important as toppling Saddam Hussein.
Beyond the concept of peace-making, moreover, it is far from clear precisely what Downing Street thinks the Northern Ireland model might portend in terms of the conditions and concessions necessary for Israeli-Palestinian agreement.
What does not appear in doubt is that Mr Blair bought into the Washington view that toppling Saddam was a necessary precursor to the quest for Middle East peace. And while his will not be the determining influence, the calculation will be that Mr Blair's will be significantly enhanced when that issue takes centre-stage.
More immediately, Mr Blair and President Bush will be pressed at this morning's press conference on their perceived differences over the post-conflict reconstruction of Iraq. Will retired general, Jay Garner, and his team be there for six months or more, as the Pentagon seems to think, or the lesser "relatively short" time anticipated by Foreign Office minister Mike O'Brien at the weekend?
Despite the scepticism resulting from years of "spin", we should almost certainly take No 10 spokesmen at face value when they reply that, at this stage in the war, it is impossible to say.
It also seems plain from Mr Blair's demeanour in the House of Commons that he and Mr Bush share a pretty clear understanding as to the next steps. He might have to nuance it a bit for his own backbenchers, but Mr Blair appears perfectly comfortable that the allies will remain in charge until the situation is secure; and that they will work in partnership with the UN to achieve a multi-ethnic interim administration paving the way for elections to a representative government of the Iraqi people.
Whatever the torments of ministers like Clare Short or Peter Hain, Mr Blair harbours no notion that the UN would expect, or have the capacity, to run Iraq once the war is over. But neither has he any interest in continuing the pre-war battles which led to diplomatic failure at the Security Council.
If anything Mr Blair's belief in his own world view - a strong UN, Britain at the heart of Europe and as transatlantic bridge - has been strengthened by the fallout from the Security Council's failure to follow through on Resolution 1441.