Stormy ports

I was thinking about my post from yesterday about Bush and his willingness to veto a bill that would prevent the UAE owned company from taking control of port security.

I intended it to show that Bush generally busts out the veto on issues that don't look good for the country in general, be it torture or screwing over the working man. So when he's willing to offer up the veto, it makes me concerned about the issue in general. This time, however, the White House is claiming that Bush only learned of the deal a few days ago, after the initial sale had been made by his administration.

Am I against the deal itself? Quite honestly, I'd like to see the deal investigated a little more closely, but on the surface, I don't seem to have a problem with it. Think Progress provides some points that show that these kind of deals happen all the time, and the nub is, some foreign country is going to have control of the ports. So unless we nationalize the port system, and allow the feds to watch over them all, we are essentially in a corner here.

So I'm left thinking that this issue is over hyped to show the President is turning soft on terror, which in turn may end up leading to an overly aggressive and xenophobistic bill that Democrats, due to their stance here, will be forced to back in order to outtoughen the right. The same right that supports torture of detainees and fails to recognize they have any rights at all. The same right that wields 9/11 as a cudgel to get the country to submit to it's will.

Perhaps I'm over dramatic here, but something smells slightly fishy about this one, and it's not just the mackerel in the ports.