Transition or manipulation?

This is my third post in two days on this subject, but Bush's hypocrisy won't allow me to stay silent. He speaks of "full sovereignty" for Iraq as of July 1, 2004, both in his speech last Monday and in statements thereafter, when trying to assuage the French and German about the extent of the "transfer of power." What a crock! Does he think his audience, like he, doesn't read?

Even CNN/MSNBC have caught on to the tension between Tony Blair's statement that the Iraqis will have a "veto" over military operations in Iraq, including, presumably, US forces, and the insistence by Colin Powell and other US officials that this is not so. Military force is of course a vital question of sovereignty--and will no doubt draw much attention during the debate on the UN resolution that the US is presently seeking.

But the focus on sovereignty should be much wider. Naomi Klein, many months ago--as noted in a few of my posts back then--pointed out actions by Tribune Bremer that locked in US hegemony over Iraqi law, including privatization of commerce and control over resources. These laws, by their terms, extended long past any "turnover of sovereignty" and were immutable by subsequent legislation. Now, she's not alone in her analysis. No less a Bush supporter than the Wall Street Journal has observed that Bremer's actions have, in essence, frozen Iraq into acceptance of a complex of laws for years to come, laws covering a broad span of authority under any definition of sovereignty.
The WSJ article, however, appeared on May 13, 2004, and so far hasn't gotten any play beyond its pages. Is that because the networks and cable stations still don't want to ask the tough questions even after months of discrediting reports about Bush's handling of the occupation of Iraq? Or are they just incompetent? Or both?