President George W. Bush formally asked Congress on Thursday to authorize a possible use of force against Iraq, and he warned that he was prepared to move ahead even without United Nations backing.

"If the United Nations Security Council won't deal with the problem," he said, "the United States and some of our friends will."

A draft of the congressional resolution would authorize the president "to use all means that he determines to be appropriate, including force, in order to enforce the United Nations Security Council Resolutions" - including calls for disarmament and respect for human rights - and to defend U.S. national security interests. (Text, Page 7)

The draft stopped short of calling specifically for the ouster of President Saddam Hussein, whom the United States accuses of amassing biological and chemical weapons and seeking nuclear weaponry.

Bush had said earlier that seeking Saddam's removal was "the policy of the government."

At the United Nations, Foreign Minister Naji Sabri of Iraq, saying he was reading a statement from Saddam, accused Bush of "noisy propaganda" about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to provide "international cover for using force against Iraq."

He declared that Iraq was "totally clear of all nuclear, chemical and biological weapons," was ready to receive scientists and politicians to verify as much, and charged that Washington was "acting on behalf of Zionism" and sought to "control Middle East oil."

Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesman, later called Sabri's speech "a disappointing failure in every respect" and said that the denial on weapons was "categorically a lie."

The Bush administration continued work at the United Nations on a toughly worded Security Council resolution to compel Iraq to comply with past UN demands. Secretary of State Colin Powell said that "a great deal of progress" had been made, despite a surge of opposition among key council members after Iraq agreed to permit new arms inspections. The administration wants a UN resolution to be introduced by next week declaring Iraq in "material breach" of international law, The Washington Post reported. The phrase has been used as international authorization for past military action.

But Bush, after a White House meeting with Powell and national security advisers, made it plain that a UN failure to pass such a resolution would not tie his hands, or slow action.

Asked about reports that Iraqi officials might already be seeking to limit the access of returning UN arms inspectors, Bush said bluntly: "There are no negotiations to be held with Iraq. They have nothing to negotiate.

"The negotiations are over." One week after Bush promised to work with the UN on Iraq - and three days after Baghdad agreed to readmit arms inspectors, a move that slowed momentum toward the tough resolution he sought - the U.S. president appeared intent on pressing briskly ahead. The UN draft being worked on by U.S. and British officials was expected to include new instructions for weapons inspectors and a tight timetable for disarmament, Western diplomats said. But diplomats experienced with past inspections said it could take two months for the inspectors to return.

And Fleischer said that Iraq was already "putting up conditions." The United States would oppose any new Iraqi effort to exclude so-called presidential palaces in Iraq from inspection, he said. Saddam "does not want the world to even visit those sites," he said. "There's probably a reason why."

Division among Security Council members has slowed action on a new resolution. But two permanent members that have expressed doubts about the need for a new resolution - Russia and France, both with veto power - appeared slightly less adamant Thursday.

"The United Nations may no longer need a resolution now that Baghdad has said it would let weapons inspectors return," said Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin of France, "but it could pass one that welcomes this decision and sets conditions for their work."

Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov of Russia also was more equivocal Thursday, saying, "It's none of my business to decide whether we need one or we don't." He added, however, that "I think we should send the inspectors there."

Some critics have suggested that the United States weakened its case by rejecting Iraq's "yes" to new inspections. But U.S. spokesmen say that Iraq surely has used the four years since inspections were suspended to conceal its arms facilities beyond the inspectors' ability to unearth them.

The inspectors said at the time that they were hamstrung by Iraqi obstructionism, and Iraq accused them of spying.

The Russian defense minister, Sergei Ivanov, directly challenged the U.S. assertion. Speaking just before talks here with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Ivanov said that inspectors could "easily determine" whether or not Iraq was pursuing biological, chemical and nuclear weapons.

Rumsfeld, a harsh critic of inspections, stood silently as Ivanov spoke.

With the diplomatic and political efforts continuing, U.S. preparations for a possible military attack moved ahead Thursday. General Tommy Franks, who commands U.S. forces in the region, met Thursday in Kuwait with the heads of the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Special Operations.

U.S. troops began a desert exercise in Kuwait this month, even as U.S. military movements in the region increased.

Asked how many countries might join the United States in action against Iraq, Bush said, "Time will tell."

But he added that "a lot of nations" understood that Iraq posed a threat, and that UN credibility was at stake. "We're confident," he added, "that people will follow our lead."

While Bush has moved quickly to firm up congressional support for an attack on Iraq, opposition abroad remains widespread.

And attacks on Bush at the UN General Assembly were loudly applauded by diplomats from many countries.

In Congress, the Iraq resolution was expected to win overwhelming bipartisan support in the House and Senate, possibly by early next month. But some prominent legislators have continued to voice concerns.

Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat and chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, warned of "very significant risks" if the United States acted alone against Iraq.

The senior Republican on the committee, Senator John Warner of Virginia, said that a war against Iraq could overstretch U.S. military forces. And Senator John Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, said: "I don't have a problem with use of force. But when, where, how and under what circumstances?"