And your problem is...? Give it time - look at Japan and Germany. In a few years (yes, years - unless Kerry gets elected and screws it up)you and others will be asked: "Would you like some fries with that crow?"

Keep ze eyes on ze question. I have no problem with the politics or "the plan" - it's the screwing up of the legal concepts. If it is going to be a protectorate, call it a protectorate.

Only the extremely naive would have expected any different type of "Iraqi Sovereignty" at this time - "the goal will be achieved", eventually.

Please - focus. That is like saying you are getting a ham sandwich if you order fish and chips but it is called "Iraqi fish and chips". Words have meaning. If the choice of word's is your government's and it is an improper use, you are suggesting that the proper thing for the government to do is treat the populace as "extremely naive". Don't we deserve better?

Please- I'm focused. This is an interim "turn over of political power" with a view to free elections in early 2005. What Bush has said about the June 30th "turn over" date(the Bush Admin. does not talk about "sovereignity" on that date) is that it will show the Iraqi people that the US has "no interest in occupation. On that date the Coalition Provisional Authority will cease to exist. But coalition forces will remain in Iraq to help the new government succeed." Did I hear some talk about a ham sandwich?

Mea culpa. I just heard Bremmer and Bush talk about handing over "sovereignty to the Iraqi people" on June 30. These statements are at best misleading, if not deceitful.

That was aaaaaalllll I was saying...

Of course, they'll want to distinguish it now as the "beginning" of turning over sovereignty, or that you misunderstood: your meaning of "sovereignty",isn't the same type of "sovereignty" they're talking about or some such other Clintonesque bullsh*t. I thought Bush, Wolfiwitz, Rumsfeld and the others were better than that. But it was Rumsfeld who gave us the infamous "As we know, there are known knowns. There are things we know we know.
We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know." You know?
(ahh, just throw this one in the bin with the other Sayings of Nay)

Y'know, if Parizeau and Bouchard want a soveriegnty, we could give 'em Iraq style soveriegnty. A Quebec government appointed by the Canadian PM (made up of local notables, including 'Pit Bill' Johnson), and a consultative assembly that is not allowed to pass laws. If that's soveriegnty, I've got no problems giving it to Quebec.

I suppose we'll soon be hearing that the Iraqi's want 'responsible government' and that the Shias want 'rep by pop'.

That is the interesting thing about throwing around the word - distinct from a particular political context - is that it has to have consistent meaning wherever it is used. So when provinces want Federal funds for their areas of soverign control, or Iraq is being awarded soverignty or even if we Canadians consider amalgamating with the Turks and Cacos, a UK colony at the moment I believe, we have to know what the deal really is going to be.

Colin Powell clarifies as reported by the BBC: here's your sovereignty, and now give most of it back:<blockquote class="smalltext"><b>
US sets limits to Iraqi self-rule</b><p>...<p>
"I hope they will understand that in order for this government to get up and running - to be effective - some of its sovereignty will have to be given back, if I can put it that way, or limited by them," Mr Powell said. "It's sovereignty but [some] of that sovereignty they are going to allow us to exercise on their behalf and with their permission." <p>Speaking in Washington, Mr Powell said the coalition did not mean to "seize anything away" from the planned caretaker government. "It is with the understanding that they need our help and for us to provide that help we have to be able to operate freely, which in some ways infringes on what some would call full sovereignty," he said. <p>But in an interview with the Associated Press, the current head of the US-backed Iraqi Governing Council, Massoud Barzani, accused the US of behaving like "an army of occupation". </blockquote>

...and there is already a plan for 18 months of full military presence by the US in Iraq after the hand-over. No mention of the opinion of Massoud Barzani on that timeline. That would be over two years into the deployment.

Even the new interim government is chomping for it...

This is good news:<blockquote class="small text">UNITED NATIONS (AP) - The UN Security Council gave a resounding 15-0 endorsement today to a U.S. resolution backing the transfer of sovereignty to Iraq's new government 14 months after the fall of Saddam Hussein. U.S. President George W. Bush predicted the measure would instil democracy and be a "catalyst for change" in the Middle East. France and Germany dropped their objections after the resolution included a last-minute compromise giving Iraqi leaders control over the activities of their own troops and a say on "sensitive offensive operations" by the multinational force, such as the controversial siege of Fallujah. But the measure stops short of granting the Iraqis a veto over major U.S.-led military operations. </blockquote>Unlike what Colin Powell said a few weeks ago, when the Iraqia say leave, the US will not have to. But at least it is going to get "normalized" - whatever that means - and the world can get into the rebuilding.