This is insanely interesting. In fact, I strongly recommend you read http://whitehouse.gov on a regular basis, if only because when faced with someone who tries to pull a "Bush never said that, my position is consistent, I swear" you can go to google and do something like this, point at the result, and ignore everything they say in response because you've already won.
But beyond, that, the press briefing I linked to shows us a lot of interesting things. Most importantly, that our press isn't a bunch of total wusses. This came as a shock to me, but there's no other way to explain it. Honestly, read this:
Q How would you describe exactly what it is that the Iraqis will get on June 30th? Is it sovereignty? Is it limited sovereignty? Is it the exercise of the principles of sovereignty? I'm not quite exactly sure what they're going to get.
MR. McCLELLAN: Sovereignty will be transferred to the Iraqi people on June 30th. That is what was agreed to with Iraqi leaders under the November 15th agreement, and we are moving forward to meet that commitment. The Iraqi people want us to meet that timetable. And we anticipate that, in accordance with the oft-expressed preferences of Iraqi leaders, that the Iraqis, themselves, will impose some limits on the authority of that interim government. But sovereignty will be transferred to the Iraqi people on June 30th.
Q But it doesn't seem to fit the true definition of sovereignty, because they will not have control of the country, they will not have control of security --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, let's keep a couple of things --
Q There's some thought, even, of collapsing the --
MR. McCLELLAN: Let's separate out sovereignty and let's separate out authority and let's keep this in context. This is an interim represented body that we are talking about. The precise structure and composition of the interim government are being worked about among Iraqi leaders and Mr. Brahimi, in consultation with the Coalition Provisional Authority.
Are those the kind of questions you see in a mainstream newspaper? Think about how badass it would be if newspapers actually published articles consisting of some journalist forcing an official spokesperson* of the Bush administration to admit that things they tell you are totally misleading over and over. I, personally, would piss myself with delight if this happened. But it doesn't. Why not? Well, I really wasn't a big fan of the "oh no! corporate control of the media!" theory, but someone on some level is stopping some awesome people from accurately portraying this administration, and that's worth thinking about.
Oh, and it also answers my questions about those who support the draft that I asked earlier. When they become sovereign, we'll need to send more of our soldiers to occupy their country. Suppose I'll have to get shot at for more than a month.
*I'm not actually sure who Scott McClellan is, but that seems like a reasonable guess.
