Regular readers of this blog (other than Pete Rempel and Jinx McHue, that is) may recall that I regularly ask when (or if) Iraq will eventually become fully "sovereign," or whether that question even has any meaning, given the frequency with which the Bush administration keeps yammering on about how they will, some day for sure, "grant" full sovereignty to Iraq, as if they're doing Iraq a favour or something.
This has become a bigger issue lately given that the Bushies have kind of, sort of promised that, if Iraq told the Americans to leave, they would, which kind of, sort of suggests that the Iraqis really are running things, no?
How, then, to explain this snippet from the latest issue of The Economist in an article entitled "Why America Must Stay"):
... Moves to set a timetable [for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq] have been voted down, but the Republican-controlled Senate has voted 79-19 for 2006 to be "a period of significant transition to full Iraq sovereignty" ..."
WTF?? So ... Iraq's not sovereign. Yet. And, by the end of 2006, it still won't be sovereign but, no fear, it will have made a "significant transition" on the way to getting there. What does this even mean anymore?
Apparently, though, Secretary of Advanced Senility Donald Rumsfeld missed the memo on that vote, proclaiming in his typical divorced-from-reality way:
When Aldinger protested that the question was not hypothetical, Rumsfeld replied that Iraq is "a sovereign country" ...
Listening to Donald Rumsfeld talk about Iraq is like listening to Stephen Harper talk about same-sex marriage. You don't know exactly what's coming, but you know the train wreck can't be far away.