Now the pen comes out?

If there was ever a day for surprises, it is today. Take this whole shipping port situation, for instance. What surprises me regarding this situation, first of all, is that Bush is at all surprised regarding the reaction that this is getting. Very reminiscent of the "deer in the headlights" response that he got when he nominated Harriet Miers to SCOTUS. The second big surprise is that this issue garnered Bush's first threat in his entire administration to wield his veto pen should efforts come from Congress to try to block the deal. Why the veto pen now? With all due respect, where was Bush's veto pen when it really would have done some good? Bush has never even so much as hinted at the use of a veto up until this point. What is it about this issue that makes him so determined, especially in light of the fact that:

Feb. 22, 2006 — President Bush did not know that an Arab-owned company was to take over operations at major American seaports until the deal was already completed, the White House admitted today.

"He became aware of it over the last several days," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.

Has Bush really had time to examine the issue to the point where he's willing to kick and scream and drag his heels to support its passage?

Or could President Bush's determined stance on this issue merely be another example of the loyalty and total trust that Bush puts into his staff? Possibly so.

But at the same time you gotta admit that it's a little more than baffling that thought wasn't given beforehand as to the reaction that this would engender. Whether the threat is real or merely perceived, in turning control of major shipping ports into Arab hands in a post-9/11 world, given the current climate of Arab unrest and anti-American sentiment, could one really blame people for being the least bit queasy regarding this situation?

Now I have no doubt that thought was given at various levels as to security issues of having a UAE state-owned company to manage those ports. However, even given that Homeland Security would continue to monitor those ports, the UAE-owned concern would still have the authority to hire and to fire. What type of screening process would be utilized, and would an Al Qaeda mole have an easier go of being hired by the UAE concern than if it remained in British hands?

Even given this, I am wholly surprised that there are democrats, who by their previous behavior suggested that 9/11 never happened or was at best an anomaly, that now seem to be suddenly interested in homeland security. Is this sudden interest on their part an attempt to divide and conquer republicans by dividing the ranks?

This issue has more facets than a house of mirrors and is every bit as confusing.


(filed under world affairs, war on terror, religion of peace?)