All entries from the USA (click here for main index)
On board the PM's plane: Part of political reporters' DNA is the ability to sniff out the faintest whiff of a U-turn.
So, when those of us travelling with the prime minister were briefed that that he'd be calling for a reappraisal of strategy in the war on terror, noses began to twitch. But on hearing the speech in full it became clear that, like the lady, the gentleman at Number Ten was not for turning.
There was no reappraisal, no re-think of the war in Iraq or Afghanistan or Britain's approach to Israel's war in Lebanon. Far from it. Instead Tony Blair painted the picture of a global struggle between moderate and Reactionary Islam, between freedom and repression, democracy and theocracy.
It is incredible to me, he said, that so much Western opinion appears to buy the idea that the emergence of global terrorism is our fault.
He criticised coverage of the war in Lebanon for not recognising Israel's predicament. In that respect, the prime minister has now left a land where his views are the received wisdom to head home to a country with, it appears, grave doubts about his analysis.
So where then was the reappraisal? Where the re-think? Not on the war on terror itself but on the need to have a "hearts and minds" strategy to match the military one. Tony Blair used his speech last night to spend the political capital he has gained for standing shoulder to shoulder with America for so long. He argued that only an alliance of moderation could take on what he has dubbed the "arc of extremism".
And that alliance would only emerge IF moderate Muslims saw that America believed in the need to create a Palestinian state. Nothing else, he said, was more important to the success of our foreign policy. In truth this is not a re-think at all. Straight after 9/11 he declared that the kaleidoscope had been shaken and that the world could and should be re-made starting with solving the Palestinian crisis.
But now he is trying again - saying, in effect, to the US and Israel there is no military solution to your insecurity. Will they listen now? After all, it is not just in the White House that Tony Blair is hailed as a hero - in hotel lobbies and restaurants people stand and clap on gaining a glimpse of America's ally-in-chief.
The doubt though - just as it was over the Iraq war - is when Tony Blair says "yes but" do they hear the "yes" but not the "but". It's a doubt unlikely to be troubling the man upfront in first class who - in his speech to Rupert Murdoch's executives - declared that his inner self-confidence was complete.
• After an extraordinary few days - you can read all my posts from the USA by clicking here - I am now heading off on my family hols and am leaving Newslog in the capable hands of James Landale, chief political correspondent of News 24. As Arnie would say, I'll be back.
Los Angeles: Move over George. Tony Blair has a new American friend.
Yes, it's Arnie - the movie star turned Governor of California - who these days is known as the "emissions terminator". This battler against climate change today signed an agreement with the prime minister to work together to save the planet.
Arnie praised Tony as an inspiration and a great leader. Both men agree that science and technology will produce the answers to climate change. They want jointly to investigate the technology and the incentives for the private sector to come up with those answers.
Tony Blair's new American friend has a very different view from his old one. George Bush's administration still casts doubt on the scientific basis for concern. Though a Republican, Governor Schwarzenegger is scathing. He says the debate is over although, he adds, there are "people who doubt it and who think the world is flat". Arnie and Tony are agreed on the need to pursue another Bush bete-noire - stem cell research.
The prime minister says that developing links with California - which would be one of the world's biggest economies were it a country - is good for British jobs. Some wonder though whether this trip's also about his search for a job once he leaves Number Ten. Governor Schwarzenegger - the man who's already had a few careers - was asked if he could give some advice for a prime minister contemplating a career change. He could and suggested that the PM could be the Head of the UN or, if he fancied Hollywood, Terminator 4.
Mr Blair insisted that was the best job offer he'd had and then, added hastily, "the only offer".
When British reporters - including this one - asked tough questions about Israel and the Lebanon, Arnie came to Tony's aid. "It's amazing," he said, and then added sarcastically, "I like the optimism... it's very nice".
After that Californian endorsement, Tony Blair wouldn't be human if he didn't think "I'll be back".
San Francisco International Airport: "These are sovereign governments, not puppets on a string". Thus the PM's official spokesman sought to explain why Tony Blair did not believe that calling for an immediate ceasefire would change anything on the ground in Lebanon. Gone was the optimism of only 12 hours earlier when Tony Blair talked of there being "a real chance" of getting an end to hostility.
When Mr Blair spoke to his Israeli opposite number he clearly did not hear what he hoped to hear. Mr Olmert is not ready to call a ceasefire in the coming days and insists that he will only be willing to do so once an international force moves into southern Lebanon.
So the next Blair phone call was to President Chirac. France are the former imperial power, they are in the chair of the Security Council and are expected to lead any international force. The problem is that they say that their troops will only go in once there's a political deal and not a day before. Mr Chirac, unlike Tony Blair, has been willing to criticise Israel and, indeed, his foreign minister has sugested that the carnage in Qana could have been avoided if Britain and the US had followed France's lead.
So, as we prepare to take off from San Francisco to Los Angeles the diplomatic augurs look poor. The backroom boys and girls from Number Ten who thought this would be a leisurely trip to the sun are set to have yet another broken night's sleep. As their boss snores they take messages from diplomats in the Middle East, at the UN and back at base in Number Ten and they set up calls with world leaders once the PM awakes. They've never had a trip quite like this one.
It's not often that you get to write about the prime minister and transvestism in the same sentence but here goes.
Speaking to Rupert Murdoch and executives of his News Corporation last night, Tony Blair declared that political "cross dressing" was here to stay. Parties would steal each others clothes as the era of tribal politics was at an end. Divisions between right and left were no longer the ones that counted.
No greater evidence for that claim can there be than Tony Blair's closeness to Mr Murdoch himself. This trip to California was timed to ensure that the PM could go to Pebble Beach to speak to Rupert and friends. Those who know Murdoch's mind regard it as a "thank you". A bigger thank you may yet come in the form of an offer one day to sit on the board of News International. There he would join the former Spanish PM and fellow backer of the Iraq war, José María Aznar.
But who will The Sun shine on next? Rupert Murdoch likes Gordon Brown personally and they share a passion for hard work. However, he suspects that, unlike Tony Blair, Brown really is a socialist. Murdoch has not, on the other hand, taken to David Cameron and fears he may stand for nothing very much at all. Expect both men to jump through hoops trying to win Mr Murdoch's favour.
Although Rupert and Tony were thrown together by mutual opportunism, the intriguing thing is that they came together today because they agree on so very much.
For days now Tony Blar has resisted demands that he calls for "an immediate ceasefire". Now, after the tragedy of Qana, he is calling for "a ceasefire as soon as possible" which sounds awfully similar. Has he changed his position then?
The answer is no and yes.
No because he has not altered his view that those calling for an immediate ceasefire have no idea how they would bring it about. This is what he derides as "commentary" on events rather than working to shape them. He still insists that a ceasefire must come from both sides, that it must stem from a new UN resolution and that it must lead to a long lasting peace and not just be a temporary truce.
Yes, though, because he has moved to end all doubts that secretly he wants Israel to carry on its military campaign until it defeats Hezbollah.
He will still not utter the words of condemnation that Jack Straw - his former foreign secretary - has, or indeed leaders like President Chirac of France did today. This, we're told, is because he wants to retain influence with the players in this conflict.
Today he's focused his energies on talking to the Lebanese. After the tragedy of Qana it is easier to see why they may want to agree to a ceasefire but harder to see why Israel will. Tony Blair's influence in Jerusalem is limited. His best hope is to persuade the Americans to persuade them.
San Francisco: Will it, once again, have taken a tragedy to inject real urgency into the search for peace? This morning for the first time "urgent" stopped being a word Tony Blair deployed and was conveyed by his tone and his demeanour. Speaking to us in his hotel suite in San Francisco he declared that what had happened showed that "the situation simply cannot continue". I think he meant it.
He was woken this morning with the news of the of the single bloodiest attack in Israel's 19-day-old war on Hezbollah guerrillas. Soon after he called Lebanon's prime minister to express his sorrow and to discuss the diplomatic way forward. Then he marched through the lobby of the Fairmont Hotel and past my camera, turning only to promise to speak to us soon. His destination was the Sunday morning service at the Grace Cathedral just a few hundred yards up the road.
On his return he made clear that he does now believe the fighting has to stop. He said that he would be making urgent calls and having negotiations with other world leaders. He has promised to call Lebanon's prime minister again. His aim is a UN resolution that produces a ceasefire on both sides. It will include backing - in principle at least - for a new UN stabilisation force (although the detail of who serves and what their specific mandate is may have to follow). It will repeat UN Security Resolution 1559 calling on foreign forces to withdraw from Lebanon and for militias to be disarmed. In reality, this is likely to mean incorporating Hezbollah into the Lebanese army and not disbanding them. It may need also to make provision for prisoner exchanges.
We are a long way here from the carnage in Qana but Tony Blair wants to be at the centre of the talking designed to prevent another tragedy like it.
San Francisco: I've just been interviewing Tony Blair about his plan to bring peace to Lebanon (you can watch it here). He claims that there could be a ceasefire within days if the UN can reach agreement on a new resolution and the principle of setting up a new stabilisation force. If you think this sounds like he's being - in his own words - "an incurable optimist" there are two straws in the wind that may - and I do stress may - suggest you're wrong.
Firstly, an Israeli official has told my colleague Paul Adams that the guns may fall silent when the UN reaches agreement if - and it's a big if - Hezbollah stops firing rockets and does not use a ceasefire to re-arm itself. Secondly, Hezbollah itself last night said it backed the position of the Lebanese government which includes support for Resolution 1559 which calls on foreign forces to withdraw but also calls on militia to be disarmed. Do they mean it? Does this suggest that both fear the consequences of this conflict continuing? The next week should tell us the answer.
I also asked the prime minister about split in his Cabinet - a split which he said he wasn't aware of. It has now emerged that the man who was his foreign secretary until a few weeks ago - Jack Straw - has publicly attacked Israel and, by implication, his own government. Mr Straw told Muslims in his constituency that "Disproportionate action only escalates an already dangerous situation". He went on to say that "one of the many serious concerns I have is that the continuation of such tactics by the Israelis could further undermine destabilise an already fragile Lebanese nation".
A fear many people have is that Britain's position could make us a greater target for terrorist attacks. Tony Blair's answer was blunt - "when people stand up and fight, people will come after you".
To those who said they were doing nothing while Lebanon burned, Tony Blair and George Bush produced their answer. A route map, not to an immediate ceasefire but - they hope - a permanent end to hostilities.
The prime minister will regard the president's backing for a new UN resolution, a new international stabilisation force and a renewed drive to create a Palestinian state as proof of the benefits of the relationship he's forged.
There was proof too of how close both men are in their analysis of what George Bush called "the challenge of the 21st Century". Violence, Tony Blair argued, must be ended "on the basis of clear principles". He didn't spell out what that meant but it's clear what he means. Israel and Hezbollah will not be treated as equals. Terrorism must be seen not to pay. Democratically elected governments - whether in Israel or Lebanon - must be bolstered. States that sponsor terrorism - in particular Iran and Syria - must be confronted.
The president began by promising to rebuild Lebanon - the infrastructure and the houses that the Israelis have destroyed. I asked him why, instead, he didn't call on Israel to stop destroying them. It was not a question he welcomed . That, though, is sure to be the test of today's plan - how soon and for how long does it stop the killing - not just in Lebanon, of course, but in Israel too.
Washington DC: Just arrived at the White House where the temperature is fierce but President Bush's spokesman has just been decidedly lukewarm about talk of a new UN resolution.
Tony Snow told reporters here that the fundamental point is getting to have appropriate conditions on the ground to merit a new resolution and that moment has not yet occurred.
In terms of how pivotal this meeting with Blair actually is, Snow said it was arranged primarily because the prime minister was already going to be in California. "It would have been a little weird" for him not to come to the White House then.
As we queue to go through security we're greeted by a protester wearing a Bush mask with a placard saying "I love my poodle."
And Mary Masserini - the State Department's Queen of Protocol - is here to greet me too. She's been here every time I've come but informs me that this is the last time. She's decided to retire after 58 years here. Mary, I should add, is 80 years old.
Andrews Air Force base, Maryland: Sure enough, on board Blairforce One we were served up a string of momentum metaphors along with our scrambled egg and sausage. The PM wants, we're told, to "increase the urgency", "to step up a gear" and to raise "the tempo" of the search for the steps to bring about a ceasefire on both sides.
That means getting George Bush to back a UN resolution next week. It would establish a new international stabilisation force, call on foreign forces to leave Lebanon and on militias to be disarmed (a repeat of resolution 1559 in other words) and, though this may not appear in the final text, a deal on prisoner exchanges.
Politically he wants George Bush to help him rebut the claim that their refusal to call for an immediate ceasefire is in reality a green light for Israel to carry on bombing Lebanon whatever the consequences.
The problem they face, though, is that this is not a claim made only by their critics. The Israeli justice minister said yesterday that that "the world told us...to continue this operation, this war, until there is no Hezbollah presence in southern Lebanon".
That belief goes to the heart of the dilemma facing the twin architects of "the war on terror". Is Israeli action a vital part of that war that should get Bush and Blair's full support? Or, given its lack of success to date, is it now merely serving as a recruiting sergeant for the enemy?
That judgment will underlie just how much momentum towards the steps towards the resolution towards a ceasefire we see tonight.
Watch the news conference. It's sure to be fascinating.
HEATHROW: This is - one of the prime minister's Cabinet colleagues told me - the most significant Blair/Bush summit ever. Not just, he said, because of the gravity of the situation in the Middle East; not just because of the widespread anger felt at Britain's position; not just because Tony Blair's own political position is precarious; but because of the by now infamous greeting from President to Prime Minister - "Yo Blair". That open microphone at the G8 summit captured what, as I mentioned yesterday, even in Whitehall they call the "poodle problem".
Those close to Tony Blair call his approach to the US the "hug them close" strategy. Others less enamoured of it dub it "the bite your tongue" approach and they're tiring of biting their own tongues.
Stephen Wall, once the PM's adviser on Europe, is one of those who can now speak out. of his former boss's approach is echoed by many in Labour who are normally loyal to the prime minister.
Do not expect the Blair approach to change at the White House today. Not because Tony Blair fears a split with the US but because, as he delights in putting it, "it's worse than you think, I actually believe it".
The PM believes that calls for an immediate ceasefire treat Hizbollah - a terrorist organisation which rocketted Israeli civilians and captured her soldiers - as the moral equivalent of the democratic state it targetted and wants to destroy. It is, he argues, easy to be a commentator - easy, in other words, to label Israeli actions disproportionate. Harder, he insists, is to do what's necessary - that is, to develop a plan which both sides can sign up to and which will produce a sustainable ceasefire.
His advisers believe that their opposite numbers in the White House now understand that the American public's instinctive support for Israel is not shared in Europe. They hope their man can sell to the Americans a plan that they can sell to the Israelis which will then put Hizbollah on the spot and make clear that only their actions stand in the way of that immediate ceasefire. At its heart is the idea Tony Blair pushed at the G8 summit for an international stabilisation force. The hope is that this will be backed at a ministerial meeting of the United Nations next Tuesday.
The PM knows he's under huge pressure to prove that his approach delivers results. His Cabinet colleague told me this is the ultimate test of Tony Blair's entire approach to America.
UPDATE 0847BST Downing Street is teling the world that Tony Blair will today inject urgency into the search for a ceasefire. This does not mean that he has become a convert to calls for an immediate ceasefire. It merely means that he dislikes being portrayed as opposed to a halt in the violence in Lebanon. And he wants to add urgency to the search for a plan which is, he believes, the only way to bring about a sustainable peace. If you heard me somewhat breathless on Radio 4's 7am news this morning, that's because I'd just read how this was being reported by some and wanted to unreport it!
In Whitehall they call it "the poodle factor" - the widespread perception that Britain is America's poodle or, more specifically, that Tony "Yo" Blair is George Bush's. This is the only reason I can identify for the foreign secretary about US planes carrying bombs for Israel using Prestwick airport as a stopover.
The key question in this affair is: "Would the British government have said yes if the Americans had asked?"
The answer, I'm told, is "yes".
Indeed, the next few weeks will see more such flights. But under CAA regulations the carriage of dangerous goods has to be notified and in this case there was no notification. Failure to tell the authorities can result in a fine of - wait for it - ?5,000. Hardly enough to cause even a transatlantic ripple.
Margaret Beckett is making a stand - making it clear that the UK should have been asked. It's an argument which might appear to be about mere process but is really about pride, politics and poodles.
This a day before Tony Blair turns up at the White House.
The 91热爆 is not responsible for the content of external internet sites
