Bush Threatens First Veto Over Port Deal

This is getting confusing. President Bush has had ample opportunity to veto bad bill (McCain-Feingold, for instance) but has never exercised that constitutional power. He is now threatening to veto a bill which would block the sale of port operations to the firm from Dubai:

If anyone tries to tamper with the decision to allow that Dubai-based company to operate ports, Pres. Bush said he would veto legislation to delay the deal, according to a WH pool report filed by the Washington Post's Jim VandeHei.

Lawmakers, he said, must "step up and explain why a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard."

This is the first time the president has stepped up to make the implicit argument that Middle Eastern countries are no more inherently dangerous than any other; and that those who claim they are -- without saying why -- are skirting the bounds of, well, dare we say -- prejudice.

There's got to be more to this than we're seeing, and Glenn Reynolds has a thought about it:

Either this deal is somehow a lot more important than it seems (a quid pro quo for, well, something . . . ) or Bush is an idiot. Your call.

As Rush said on his show this morning, this deal makes all the economic sense in the world, and make absolutely no sense from a political standpoint. He also referred to the tsunami of public and political opposition which has already started, and it's probably too late to inject any real substantive discussion of the pros and cons into the situation.

UPDATE: From Drudge:

Bush called reporters at about 2.30 ET aboard Air Force One to issue a very strong defense of port deal... MORE... He said he would veto any legislation to hold up deal and warned the United States was sending 'mixed signals' by going after a company from the Middle East when nothing was said when a British company was in charge... Lawmakers, he said, must 'step up and explain why a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard.' Bush was very forceful when he delivered the statement... 'I don't view it as a political fight,' Bush said

Perhaps the company from the Middle East is held to a different standard than the British because the British didn't fly jetliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Just a thought.

UPDATE 2: From the Hugh Hewitt show:

Majority Leader Frist just told my audience that an override of a presidential veto of legislation blocking the port deal was possible. Looks like a showdown, and it isn't one the president can win.

That would be ugly. I think we have another "Harriett Miers moment" in the works.

UPDATE 3: From Instapundit:

Robert Ferrigno, author of Prayers for the Assassin, emails:


Bush is going to take some ugly political flak for a better cause. The USA needs to strengthen ties with Arab nations. Period. The UAE is not Switzerland, but it's not Afghanistan either, and yes they recognized the Taliban government. They're politicians too. If we can do business with Pakistan, and we must, the UAE is as good an Islamic business partner as we're going to get.

To take away the deal from the UAE now, for no other reason than their religion, would rightly insult all Muslims, and do irreparable damage to our long term interests. This would not even be an issue if the ports were secure. That should be the focus of conservative attention, not who gets the deal to run the port.

I just bought Mr. Ferrigno's book and will be reading it on the plane tomorrow.