Yes, this would be the first time he has ever vetoed anything, and I am at a loss to explain this one.
OK, after listening to various talk shows today I understand that:
1) They're not going to CONTROL port security, they're just going to be leasing berths in the port. Port security is still going to be managed by the Port Authority and the Coast Guard
2) They're not bringing people over from UAE to take the jobs of loading/unloading. Americans will be filling those jobs. U.S. labor laws apply.
3) There is NO U.S. firm that does this sort of thing, and after the Brits let these leases go, they're out of that business, too
4) The company that is taking over has been vetted
5) It's a good thing, economically speaking
6) If they have an economic interest in the ports, they're not going to want to allow anything to happen that would jeopardize their ability to make money there.
But I still don't feel warm and fuzzy about this. I don't believe that Bush would deliberately do something that would put us in jeopardy, but even if the UAE has been a recent ally of ours in the war on terror, LEADERSHIP CHANGES.
bump......
When national security is the main concern, your 5th point can only be seen as a red flag.