Charlie Reese expresses the same sentiment.
I'm not sure if President Bush lied or is just confused when he said in his recent speech that "full sovereignty" was to be handed over to an Iraqi government on June 30.
Full sovereignty would mean that the Iraqi government could tell us to get out of the country, and we would have to either go or go to war against the new government. Full sovereignty would mean, as the British said, that the Iraqi government could veto any decision by the U.S. military commander.
It's obvious that the president doesn't intend for the new government to have that much authority. His draft of a United Nations resolution makes that quite clear. So was he lying, or does he just not know what full sovereignty means?
article
Full sovereignty would mean that the Iraqi government could tell us to get out of the country, and we would have to either go or go to war against the new government. Full sovereignty would mean, as the British said, that the Iraqi government could veto any decision by the U.S. military commander.
It's obvious that the president doesn't intend for the new government to have that much authority. His draft of a United Nations resolution makes that quite clear. So was he lying, or does he just not know what full sovereignty means?
But, Doubledumb himself has a definition.
U.S. President George W. Bush said in Paris Saturday the interim Iraqi government will be able to determine its security needs.
"Absolutely," Bush told a joint news conference with French President Jacques Chirac. "That's the definition of sovereignty."
"Absolutely," Bush told a joint news conference with French President Jacques Chirac. "That's the definition of sovereignty."
All cleared up. This is the problem. Bush thinks "sovereignty" means naming your security needs.
So it follows that Doubleface hasn't been lying all along after all. He just has a different dictionary than the rest of us.
