Can someone please translate?

[Moneyguy1]

Mark Trahant, an editorial-page editor of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer asked the President what he thought tribal sovereignty means in the twentieth century.

"Tribal sovereignty means that, it's sovereign. You're a, you've been given sovereignty, and you're viewed as a sovereign entity. And, therefore, the relationship between the federal government and tribes is one between sovereign entities".

conference in Washington "Unity: Journalists of Color" last week.

comprised of black, hispanic, asian and american indian members of the press

I am really confused.........What did he say?

WTF was the dumbass question about? Sounds like W answered it as well as it could be.

[turbocarrera]

I means Bush and his administration know jack ***** about who/what they are dealing with over there..

[island911]

Hey Bob, . . .tony; what does "editorial-page editor" mean, in the twentieth century?

[arcsine]

Why is this such a dumbass question Mark?

[ronin]

because, Gary, what the hell was he supposed to say? Trahant made no effort to put the question in any kind of context. therefore there was really no appropriate way to answer the question other than to give a basic defninition, and that's exactly what GW did. just because he may not have done it with the oral eloquence of Slick Willie's dissertation on the meaning of the word "is" doesn't make it any less of a valid answer

Originally posted by Gary Carlton
Why is this such a dumbass question Mark?

Ronin is correct. Why would "tribal sovereignty" mean anything different in the 20th, 19th, or 21st century and why does he want the President to define it? It was a rhetorical.

[arcsine]

I had foolishly read the question posed as how does GWB view native american tribal rights in the present day and how historical treaties can they be reconciled with existing economic/social issues. I did not see the question was unanswerable. Well in that light I guess it is my bad for expecting an answer beyond poorly defining tribal sovereignty. Just because GWB is speaking to an audience of "Journalists of Color" including native tribes is not enough of a "context" evidently.

[turbocarrera]

Maybe Bush could have said "Do you mean Middle East tribes?" , and then Trahant could have said "Yes Mr. President".. then Bush could have said something like, "Well in the beginning of the 20th century, the Ottoman Empire had control over most of the Arab world, and the states we see today were not clearly defined. These states were comprised of what you just mentioned, sovereign tribes of Arab people. In the time leading up to and including WW1, the Turks were aligned with Germany which caused a great upheavel in the region when Germany was defeated. At the end of the war, Britain, before the Balfour Declaration..." etc etc..

Wouldn't that have been better than bull****ting your way through something you don't know and dont give a flying **** about?

[Mulholland]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
I am really confused.

That is why you hate Bush and will vote to raise my taxes...you are confused.

[kach22i]

[Shuie]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
I am really confused.........What did he say?

Im confused also. What was he asked? WTF kind of a question was that? What century are we living in and where are these tribes coming from?

[ubiquity0]

If he thought it was a bs question why didn't he just call the guy on it? Why make it hard for himself waffling some bizarre bs answer to try & make the editorial editor happy? Bush is a straight talker I'm told. Except when he's not?

Originally posted by ubiquity0
If he thought it was a bs question why didn't he just call the guy on it?

Because of the backlash from incidents like "shove it" and "F*** off". It's really unfortunate that people can't say what they really feel. That happens and they are accused of mental illness or acting drunkardly.

[lendaddy]

I'm trying to figure out just how funny it is that Tony(turbocarrera) is trying to make Bush look stupid, yet doesn't even know what the question was in reference to Hint: It had nothing to do with the Arab world. Good stuff, really... Now if Bush had used your "reply" he REALLY would have looked stupid

[nostatic]

I'm with Gary (sorry Mark). This question makes quite a bit of sense given the current state of native American affairs in this country. With the explosion of legal gaming (and the implications for local, state, and national government), the concept of "sovereignty" as it relates to the US and local structures is an important question.

The problem is GW wasn't prepped, and isn't good enough on his feet to figure out a decent "non-answer."

[turbocarrera]

Wel Len, I did mention that he could haved asked Trahant to clarify if he meant Middle east tribes..

[lendaddy]

Just havin fun Tony. I agree he could have done better with the response.

[ronin]

I'm with Mark. (sorry Todd) it is so easy for all of you to give a well-thought-out, logical, and planned answer after the fact and don't give any consideration to having to answer the question under the same terms as GW, (well at least you did, Todd) with a five second (or whatever) response time. it is just so interesting that this total non-event gets so much play amongst the left. all you guys on vacation or something with nothing better to do? (mos of) you have a perfectly good p-car in the garage. USE IT

[island911]

Originally posted by lendaddy
Just havin fun Tony. I agree he could have done better with the response.

"CASINOS. . .next question"