Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (189237)	5/26/2004 12:09:43 PM
From: steve harris	Respond to of 1574490

Gore who? lol

To: tejek who wrote (189237)	5/26/2004 12:11:39 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574490

Blair denies Bush Iraq rift Wed 26 May, 2004 14:41 By Andrew Cawthorne LONDON (Reuters) - Tony Blair has sought to quash talk of a split with the United States over Iraq, saying foreign troops' operations should stay under U.S. command once an interim local government takes over. But with another eye on Iraqi and world opinion -- anxious for an end to the year-old U.S.-led occupation -- Blair stressed the Baghdad government due to assume power after June 30 would have "full sovereignty" including over military strategy. On Tuesday, Blair surprised Washington by saying Iraqis would have a veto over operations like the recent attacks on Falluja, prompting U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell to fire back that American forces would stay under U.S. charge. As media and opposition politicians pounced on the apparently first open signs of division between London and Washington since the Iraq war, Blair insisted on Wednesday he was still in line with his ally President George W. Bush. "We are both absolutely agreed there should be full sovereignty transferred to the Iraqi people and that the multinational force should remain under American command," he told parliament on Wednesday. "The ultimate strategic and political decision-making passes to the Iraqi government after the 30th of June...Once strategic decisions have been made, the running of any operations is under the military forces and the commanders of those forces." There was "no question" of U.S. or British troops being under anything other than their own national command, he added. Clearly stung by a media storm in Britain, Blair sent Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott onto the airwaves earlier to label talk of an Anglo-American split "complete rubbish." TABOO ISSUE Prescott said the British and U.S. statements boiled down to two non-conflicting points: Iraqis having general political control over foreign troops, except when those troops were attacked. "Under circumstances which can occur where a terrorist attack takes place and attacks a military force, whether it's the Americans or the British, clearly they will be expected to defend themselves. Nobody doubts that," he said. The government line, however, still appeared to fall somewhat short of Washington's broader interpretation. Powell said on Tuesday the United States "would take into account" the Iraqis' view at political and military level. "Ultimately, however, if it comes down to the United States armed forces protecting themselves or in some way accomplishing their mission in a way that might not be in total consonance with what the Iraqi interim government might want to do at a particular moment in time, U.S. forces remain under U.S. command and will do what is necessary to protect themselves," he said. The charged issue of control over troops is crucial to convincing Iraqis -- and sceptical powers like France and Russia -- that London and Washington are serious about handing back sovereignty to Iraq. It also touches an American taboo over foreign control of its troops. A draft U.N. resolution presented by Washington and London to endorse the interim Iraqi government would allow U.S.-led forces to "take all measures" to keep order and does not contain a specific Iraqi veto clause. But British officials say such an effective veto would be included in an exchange of letters with the interim government and agreed before a U.N. vote. Some analysts speculated Britain's position may be an attempt to reassure other countries -- particularly in Europe -- over Iraq, or a response to calls from some at home for Blair to distance himself from Bush. Blair's alliance with Bush over Iraq has helped send his popularity ratings tumbling and set him up for a beating in upcoming June 30 local and European elections. But Rosemary Hollis, a Middle East expert at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, said she thought Blair's position was a genuine response to complications on the ground. "The whole period between now and the end of the year will be very messy," she added. "The U.S. has to let go of its desire to have everything streamlined and controlled, and accept mess." reuters.co.uk