"Larry Jaques" wrote in message

Relying on memory of a quick read of the previously quoted site, King
George _didn't_answer_the_question_. He mentioned US gov't programs
and political crap but said nothing about tribal sovereignty.

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."

Without further clarification, especially after all he's done in
recent times, I'd think the Prez meant that the tribes -didn't-
have any, could not self-rule, and were being taken over by King
George as yet another part of his quest for global domination.

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."

Bottom line: It isn't reasonable.

Tell that to the Supreme Court,

If I missed something, please quote his actual answer to the
question. I think it was a complete sidestep and the King's
handlers are rolling over in their (wished for) graves.

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."

Got it yet?

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