US: As Britain frantically pursued "traction" at the United Nations, there was uproar at the White House yesterday, writes Conor O'Clery, North America Editor
You can take the French out of "French fries" but you still are left with a plate of fried potato chips. But can you take the deadline out of a resolution and say it is no longer an ultimatum?
That was what Britain attempted yesterday on a day that cruelly exposed the chaotic nature of international diplomacy.
The resolution that the UK desperately needs to take part in a war against Iraq contains a deadline. It states that Saddam Hussein will have lost his last chance to disarm if he doesn't fully comply with UN demands by March 17th. France and Russia have rejected this as an ultimatum.
Yesterday British ambassador Sir Jeremy Greenstock told the ambassadors of the six wavering Security Council nations - Pakistan, Chile, Mexico, Angola, Guinea and Cameroon - that the date could be taken out.
It could be parked in a "side statement" of conditions that does not form part of the resolution, known in UN parlance as a "non-statement". The conditions could even be amended to include a later date, and exclude a televised confession from Saddam Hussein.
As Britain frantically pursued "traction" at the UN, there was uproar in the White House.
In the morning, plans were made for President Bush to fly to Europe, then they were called off.
The motorcade to take Mr Bush to the St Patrick's Day lunch on Capitol Hill was drawn up, then sent away, so he could keep calling world leaders.
Reporters were told Mr Bush's vow to force a UN vote was suddenly no longer operative.
US Secretary of State Colin Powell told a confused Congressional committee that America's options were now, "go for a vote, or not go for a vote".
Bush press secretary Mr Ari Fleischer's promise of a UN vote before the end of the week was also put on hold - to pursue "different routes", he said, to a diplomatic conclusion.
Uniting the US and Britain was fury at the French. Paris rejected the British proposal on Wednesday before seeing it, said Mr Fleischer.
"If that isn't an unreasonable veto, what is? If you reject the logic of ultimatum, then you are saying Saddam has forever to disarm."
This remark, however, raised questions about the British proposal to remove the ultimatum date from the resolution proper, and whether the White House was behind what Sir Jeremy Greenstock called a "trial balloon".
Why continue the charade when you are going to war, veteran White House reporter Helen Thomas asked Mr Fleischer. "The word charade, if I'm not mistaken, has French roots," he replied tartly.