They have been "given" soveriegnty. So does he mean the same thing I mean when I say that we've been given the rights to life, liberty, and property? When I say we've been given it, I don't mean we are given it by our government, because they often don't protect our rights to property. So what do I mean? I mean that we've been given it by God.... we've been "endowed by our Creator" as the decleration of indepedence reads. Its not that we gave it to ourselves, its that it is a natural god-"given" right. So when Bush says that the indians have been "given soveriegnty", how do you even know he means that they've been given soveriegnty by the U.S.? How do you know he didn't mean they've been "given soveriegnty" by God, or by the fact that they were here first, or any number of other things. Furthermore, sovereignty can be viewed as a relative concept, if no one else recognizes your soveriegnty, you may still be a soveriegn nation, but you will not be viewed as soveriegn and the effect of your soveriegnty (International Relations, ambassadors, etc...) will not exist. Therefore the effect of one's soveriegnty depends on the roecognition of it by other nations. Thus even if Bush meant that the U.S. "gave" soveriegnty to the American Indians, he would not be entirely wrong, because the soveriegnty of the Native Americans is relatively dependent upon the recognition of that soveriegnty by us, the sovereign nation in which they live. In the same way it could be said that the U.S. takes soveriegnty away from places like Palestine, by refusing to recongnize them as soveriegn nations. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has also proclaimed to have given Native Americans duel sovereignty within the U.S. in several court decisions. It's not a concept that is special only to Bush's so called "slipup."

So then why is this such a big deal?

Its not. The democrats just want it to be.