an observation

in today's new york times:

President Bush said in an interview on Thursday that he would withdraw American forces from Iraq if the new government that is elected on Sunday asked him to do so, but that he expected Iraq's first democratically elected leaders would want the troops to remain as helpers, not as occupiers.

"I've, you know, heard the voices of the people that presumably will be in a position of responsibility after these elections, although you never know," Mr. Bush said. "But it seems like most of the leadership there understands that there will be a need for coalition troops at least until Iraqis are able to fight."

He did not say who he expected would emerge victorious. But asked if, as a matter of principle, the United States would pull out of Iraq at the request of a new government, he said: "Absolutely. This is a sovereign government. They're on their feet."(emphasis added)

as bush correctly notes in that last line, a truly sovereign goverment is one that can ask the u.s. to leave. so does all this talk about the new post-election government mean bush now acknowledges that there is no sovereignty now? the above remarks only make sense if the june 30, 2004 "handover of sovereignty" was, in fact, bullshit.