So he DOES have a veto pen.
Won't it be interesting...am I mistaken, wor will this be the first thing he has ever vetoed?
Yup...I just don't get it
Yea, but he doesn't have a clue what he did with it...
Astoundingly, it will.
Yes, it would be. Remember a few months back, his other veto threat? Then, he threatened to veto a bill if Congress spent less on domestic spending than Bush Jr. wanted to squander.
This guy takes the cake.
Thanks, Republicans.
Politically devastating. Tantamount to suicide.
If he does his very first veto to keep the UAE in control of US ports, the symbolism will be breathtaking. This has as much potential to shatter the GOP coalition as did Harriet Miers... perhaps more.
This would be his first and only veto attempt...and in a rash way, too, which indicates that national security is of no real concern...the CFIUS review was token, at best.
A veto now, that likely gets overidden, would effectively be the end of his presidency....And he doesn't even seem to know it. He would have performed Hari-kari...and self-destructed with the Base. That Base which has hung with him through thick and thin.
The Conflict of Interest charges alone, after the explosion of the Abramoff Scandal, should have been enough to derail this.
Not to mention the grave National Security hazard that letting port control pass to a "state-owned" entity, whose state regards the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan...or that Israel should be wiped out...still.
And isn't Al-Jazeera operated out of the UAE?
Some "ally" in the War on Terror.
This behavior by GWB evinces either a political death wish, or dementia.
Yes, this would be the first time he has ever vetoed anything, and I am at a loss to explain this one.
OK, after listening to various talk shows today I understand that:
1) They're not going to CONTROL port security, they're just going to be leasing berths in the port. Port security is still going to be managed by the Port Authority and the Coast Guard
2) They're not bringing people over from UAE to take the jobs of loading/unloading. Americans will be filling those jobs. U.S. labor laws apply.
3) There is NO U.S. firm that does this sort of thing, and after the Brits let these leases go, they're out of that business, too
4) The company that is taking over has been vetted
5) It's a good thing, economically speaking
6) If they have an economic interest in the ports, they're not going to want to allow anything to happen that would jeopardize their ability to make money there.
But I still don't feel warm and fuzzy about this. I don't believe that Bush would deliberately do something that would put us in jeopardy, but even if the UAE has been a recent ally of ours in the war on terror, LEADERSHIP CHANGES.
???
'Robust trade' and selling out to big money and multinationals, to the all mighty dollar, seems to trump or be on equal footing to our national security for Bush's handlers and political hacks, like the 'Homeland Security Director.' Along with political correctness and inane diplomatic niceties, this moderate administration is becoming a big dissapointment in agressively waging the war on terror, protecting our borders and entry points, and protecting the welfare of average Americans to this Conservative who voted for them as the lesser of evils over the Leftist, Socialist, appeasing Demoncrats.
All Presidents do. He just doesn't have a line item veto.