"jo4hn" wrote in message
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.

You keep saying that, but you won't specify what it was Bush was supposed to
know and didn't. I gave you what both Bush and the Supreme Court said ...
now you show me where he was wrong/"dishonest".

Just declaring it without something to back up your statements is not
helping your argument.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 7/10/04