Swingman wrote:
"jo4hn" wrote in message


Why couldn't Bush have taken the honest straightforward path and
admitted that he didn't know? If he felt that he would honestly do so,
he might have added that he would look into the matter. Integrity and
honesty have disappeared.
sigh,


Before you become go too comfortable in the "he didn't know" scenario,
consider:

1997 US Supreme Court: "Indian tribes ... should be accorded the same status
as foreign sovereigns"

Bush: "Tribal sovereignty means that. It's sovereign. You're a ... you're a
... you've been given sovereignty and you're viewed as a sovereign entity."

So, he stuttered. but where's the beef?

Is it possible a lot of folks are being duped/agendized with some pretty
esoteric bull**** on this issue, and in this thread?

I suggest honesty as a policy and you and Mr. White defend Mr. Bush's
dishonesty. Thank you for proving my point. Depressing as it all is.
j4