2 + 2 = 817

Concerning SecDef Rumsfeld’s comments on the role of British troops in Iraq, explain to me how this:

“I think until we know what the (U.N.) resolution is, we won’t know the answer as to what their role will be,” Rumsfeld said.

“And to the extent they are able to participate — in the event that the president decides to use force — that would obviously be welcomed. To the extent they’re not, there are work-arounds and they would not be involved, at least in that phase…”

And, four hours later, Rumsfeld issued a terse two-paragraph written statement expressing confidence that the forces of America’s most prominent ally would be side-by-side with U.S. troops should an attack take place.

“In the event that a decision to use force is made, we have every reason to believe there will be a significant military contribution from the United Kingdom,” he said.

. . . interprets into this:

A U.S decision to go it alone would be slap in the face for the beleaguered Blair who has gone out on a limb and sparked a revolt in his own Labour Party to support Bush in his hawkish stance on Iraq.

Yet another brilliant piece of journalistic bias courtesy of the Washington Post.