IIRC, if they go against this deal and vote it down, Bush will veto it, then congress will vote to override his veto. Don't 2/3 of both houses have to vote it down?
Good assessment. And, even if Bush did have a 'deal" with Dubai, it was one where they agreed to give us something that was not even required for the whole thing to pass. The Dims and MSM (and a lot of "Repubs") must have clooged suinuses - they can't smell the pile they are stepping in.
Ask Bush what they could legally do. He apparently believes it's the government's prerogative to block the deal. From CNN:
"This deal wouldn't go forward if we were concerned about the security of the United States of America," Bush told reporters during a Cabinet meeting.
Actually, they weren't. Or at a minimum, exceptions to the existing laws (of a particularly disturbing nature) were made.
"Under a secretive agreement with the administration, a company in the United Arab Emirates promised to cooperate with U.S. investigations as a condition of its takeover of operations at six major American ports . . .The U.S. government chose not to impose other, routine restrictions.
Under the deal, the government asked Dubai Ports to operate American seaports with existing U.S. managers "to the extent possible." The company promised to take "all reasonable steps" to assist the Homeland Security Department.
The administration required Dubai Ports to designate an executive to handle requests from the U.S. government, but it did not specify this person's citizenship.
It said Dubai Ports must retain paperwork "in the normal course of business" but did not specify a time period or require corporate records to be housed in the United States. Outside experts said stricter provisions are routine in other industries.
Foreign communications companies with American customers are commonly required to store business records in the United States. A senior U.S. official said the Bush administration considers shipping manifests less sensitive. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the confidential nature of the agreement."
I'm sorry, but it is the height of nonsense to require a so-called retention of paperwork, but not to require specific time-periods or that the paperwork be retained in the US. And it is the height of nonsense to say that shipping manifests are less sensitive. Less sensitive than what? And if they are "less sensitive," what's the point of the US Customs CIS program and the proposed Cargo Verification regime?
As for the so-called approval process, we now know that President Bush, Mr. Rumsfeld, and the supposed head of the CFIUS, Treasury Sec. Snow, had no involvement in the actual approval. Who did?