Powell: He's Flipped

I know that his deputy, Richard Armitage said recently that Powell's UN WMD presentation has left him with a source of great distress, but it is being reported that Powell has said that the U.S. will pull ALL foreign(U.S, British, etc.) out of Iraq after 'sovereignty' is turned over to the Iraqis on June 30.

Of course, it ain't that simple, Colin.

Since WaPo has done much of the lifting on the issue, I'll cede the floor:

His statement[Powell's], which was echoed by the foreign ministers of Britain, Italy and Japan, and by the U.S. administrator in Iraq, came one day after conflicting testimony on Capitol Hill by administration officials on the issue. Testifying before the House International Relations Committee on Thursday, Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman appeared to say that the interim government could order the departure of foreign troops, only to be contradicted by Lt. Gen. Walter Sharp, sitting at his side, who asserted that only an elected government could do so. Iraqi elections are scheduled for January.

U.S. officials emphasized that they could not imagine the new government requesting the departure of almost 170,000 troops when the security situation in the country is so dire. But the new government's ability to assert its authority after the occupation authority dissolves on June 30 has been a central question in the international consultations over the shape of the incoming government, with the United States under pressure to transfer as much political power as possible to the Iraqi people.

"The Iraqi government has to be in a position to govern, and that's why I mean that it has to be a break with the past, " French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier said at a news conference in Washington after a preparatory meeting for next month's Group of Eight summit in Sea Island, Ga.

Barnier had been harshly critical of U.S. actions in Iraq before he arrived in Washington, seeming to equate U.S. and Israeli actions in an interview with Le Monde published on Thursday. "What strikes me is the spiral of horror, of blood, of inhumanity that one is seeing on all fronts, from Fallujah to Gaza and in the terrible images of the assassination of the unfortunate American hostage," he told the newspaper. "It all gives the impression of a total loss of direction."

French, Russian and Italian officials pressed yesterday for the new government to be given the authority to halt military actions by U.S. forces. Powell rejected that, saying the forces will remain under the command of an American who "has to be free to take whatever decisions he believes are appropriate to accomplish his mission."

Why do I see another blunder in the offing? Conditioning? Yes. That's it.

Lots more at the WaPo link.

*******************************

There was an ill-researched AP article that was picked up by my local paper today. Interestingly, Google only shows one hit for it. The headline and text are identical in both this online document. "After scandal, has U.S. lost its moral authority?"

What? The U.S. has some sort of moral authority?

Sorry. If you really read history, rather than fall victim to 'the doctrine of change of course,' and various propagandist disinformation, you have to come to the conclusion that far from being a benevolent power in the world, the U.S. could more correctly be called the largest sponsor of state militarism.

This isn't really in dispute. The facts are what they are. Both Democratic and Republican administrations have had their share of unwarranted military aggressions done in the name of this doctrine or that pretext.

Of course it goes much further back than the 20-21st centuries.

Think, don't react. Why does the U.S. spend as much its military as the rest of the world combined? It's just called the 'defense industry.' It's a tool that has, save for a few instances, been used for naked offense.