“And also note, he would not be able to veto sections 1031 and 1032-which Congress passed and sent to him-without killing the entire NDAA bill.”
Not to comment on the merits of the bill, but this kind of reasoning is silly. Just because some politician finagles a clause into an essential bill doesn’t mean we should just pass it. If someone poisons the well, you don’t keep drinking out of it, you dig a new well.
I suppose in theory he could, but I am not sure the NDAA is analogous to drinking from a well. There would be all sorts of ramifications if he vetoed it, and so that he signed it does not mean the responsibility for its passage, with the new sections, is entirely attributable to him.