"We had a colonial style government in mind, when we put Bremer in charge. And we seemed to have no particular plan to move him out and the Iraqis in.

We changed our own minds about how good an idea that was. But I really don't see that anything much "changed" except that our expectations proved to be naive. "

Here is 2003 news story:
"In the past, Bremer has said a government could be in place by the end of 2004. His optimism was surprising given that it took the Governing Council more than two weeks to agree on a presidency, its first order of business.

When the 25 members were unable to select a single president, they tried to come up with a three-member presidency before finally deciding on a nine-member team that will each hold the presidency for a month, council sources told The Associated Press.

The legitimacy of Iraq's government is key to rebuilding the country. On Wednesday, World Bank President James Wolfensohn said it was unclear whether the council had the legitimacy to receive international loans.

"Clearly a constitution and an elected government would constitute a recognized government, but what do we do in the meantime?" Wolfensohn said during a one-day trip to Baghdad. "It's a subject that needs interpretation." "
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-07-31-iraq-attack_x.htm

The plan from the beginning was have permanent govt elected by Iraq which had a constitution. The problem was how to get there.

They had to start from occupational authority. In addition to the occupational authority they selected a group of 25 Iraq leaders- they couldn't have a national election because it simply to soon- it takes time to do this. [they did do local elections in areas which security conditions permitted]. They went from this to temporary govt which was elected. It needed to be temporary because first they needed a constitution- which would outline how and what was to be elected and what rules this govt would follow.
So Bremer had PLANNED to have election before end of the year [which many thought was too soon and unrealistic]. Bremer GOT the election, but it was one month after he was planning them to be. Then this temp goverment was charged with forming a constitution- they managed to finally do this, but it also late [it missed it's deadline- by at least a month [depending on how "count it"]. Point is, they moved fast, but it takes time to do these things.
Then the country voted to approve their constitution and it passed! [unlike the EU constitution- which btw the EU constitution took YEARS to do].

And with this approved constitution they *could* then elect the permanent goverment which the Iraqi DID. NOW this govt hasn't yet finished forming [and they are month or more behind doing this- but *actually* they going only slightly slower than it normally takes the US to form a govt. And the US has a bit more experience doing this- and the US has better security conditions [normally speaking].

In other words it was planned [as much as allowing the Iraqi to make their OWN decisions about what kind of govt they wanted- CAN be planned]. And the whole process was VERY VERY fast.
Now, it could have been faster, for instance if we simply handed the Iraqis a constitution and said "this is what you going to follow"; we could saved at least a year of time, if we had taken this route.
I think the process we took was the correct and fair path. But if you have better idea of how it could have been done, I would like to hear it.