Powell Says Iraq Will Not Get Veto Over U.S. Troops

[cal04]

The United States will not give Iraq a veto over U.S. troops, but will work with the government there as partners, Secretary of State Colin Powell said Wednesday. As several nations demanded changes in a proposed U.N. resolution to bolster Iraq's authority, Powell said the 138,000 U.S. troops will remain under U.S. command. "There could be a situation where we have to act and there may be a disagreement," Powell said.

In a televised interview with Middle East Broadcasting, Powell reminded critics of the already revised U.S.-British draft that gives sovereignty to the interim Iraqi government. Still, he said, the United States and Iraq will operate as partners and "work out the necessary arrangements" between U.S. and Iraqi forces.
"We are not looking for ways to cause problems," he said. "We are looking for ways to solve problems." "You can't use the word 'veto'" to describe Iraq's authority, he said.

While the Iraqi government is sovereign, circumstances could arise where U.S. troops might have to protect themselves, Powell said. "Hopefully, it will always be with the agreement and understanding of the Iraqi interim government," he said. "I don't expect that we will run into any problems." At the same time, Powell said the United States has had to be "very prudent" in the way it has used American troops. Holding back the Marines in Fallujah and letting tribal sheiks and others try to restore order had nothing to do with U.S. politics, he said. "There are still bad people in there," Powell said. "But nevertheless, we are working with the local political authorities and Iraqi police and civil defense troops in order to control that situation."

"We are not going in and destroying buildings and hospitals, and hurting innocent people," he said. "I think we are being very prudent in the way we use our forces. It's got nothing to do with the presidential elections."


http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBLPP820VD.html

[acmavm]

1. Big frigging surprise. (Not) Wonder how well this will sit with the Iraqi

people. They're none too happy today.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

2. I believe that's a 180.

No surprises.

[madrchsod]

3. Powell??

is he the the guy the prez refereed to the other day as "the secretary of state" without saying Powell's name..i just Colin is`nt on the a-list anymore...

[librechik]

4. some see the glass of sovereignty as "full"

others see it as half full.

[Miss Authoritiva]

5. Now I get it: The U.S. is the majority shareholder and the Iraqis get to

"vote" by proxy. And thanks to our forceful lobbying of international law entities, the whole thing is a limited liability corporation. In addition to oil, do the Iraqis have any overfunded pension reserves we could tap into?

[Alerter_]

6. Cons like Powell say the exact opposite of the truth

It's their strategy. When Bush started up the rape and torture of Iraqis, he went on TV to say the exact opposite - that Saddam's torture and rape rooms are now closed - when as Kennedy correctly said, they had been reopened under Bush management.

So if Powell is saying "We are not going in and destroying buildings and hospitals, and hurting innocent people, I think we are being very prudent in the way we use our forces. It's got nothing to do with the presidential elections" he is most likely doing the exact opposite.

[oblivious]

7. How can this be? I heard * say 'full and complete sovereignty'

That was earlier this week. And he repeated it, slowly and emphatically, to be sure we ignoramusses got it - 'full and complete' on June 30.

[Jacobin]

8. Gee, is that a "flop" or a "flip"?

I get so confused....