February 21, 2006

a veto?

5+ years in office, hundreds of bad bloated bills have *sailed* across Bush's desk and the first item he chooses to declare a possible veto on... transitioning responsibility of U.S. ports over to the UAE. Yes, that UAE.

Bush told reporters traveling back to Washington with him from Colorado that he would veto legislation to stop the deal from going through.

"After careful review by our government, I believe the transaction ought to go forward," Bush said. He added that if the U.S. Congress passed a law to stop the deal, "I'll deal with it with a veto."

Someone somewhere's getting a reach-around.

Posted by kerry at February 21, 2006 11:32 AM
Comments

Why do you assume that someone's getting a "reach-around"? At this point, I think the administration just does any damn thing they want, simply because they can get away with it. They're a bunch of lying, murderous, bloodsucking, fascist demons who are hell-bent on fomenting chaos and who destroy absolutely everything they touch, whether or not there's any filthy lucre to be made. Bush's threat to veto any attempt to stop this is first and foremost a threat to smack down any attempt by Congress to rein in his self-proclaimed unitary executive authority.

That being said, his veto threat is just rhetoric. He's been in office for over five years and hasn't vetoed a single thing, and he's not about to start now. His thread is just to let his pawns in Congress know what he expects them to do. If they were to pass such a law, he'd just sign it using one of those Alito-inspired weaselly signing statements that says "I understand 'X' to mean 'not X' and will act according to that understanding".

Posted by: Peter Dubuque at February 21, 2006 12:15 PM

Ok, well there's that.

Separation of powers is September 10, 2001 type thinking. ;)

Posted by: kerry at February 21, 2006 12:44 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?