Threatening veto is equal to shutting up dissent. Especially that he never vetoed anything else.
I responded to your post where you talked about LEADERSHIP. This is exactly what I am talking about too. Answer this point, please: how should a reasonable person supporting President respond to him saying he did not know about the deal until a very few days ago, when the day before he said he will veto any opposition to this deal? Leaders are to lead, not just command. It was bad leadership regardless of the merits of the deal itself.
You are saying that people rushed to squeal and ignored the truth that was squelched. I disagree. Obviously this is a hot button issue, as this and many other threads here and everywhere show. And this is not a clear cut obvious to anybody deal. People are justified to have a first negative reaction to it. There is a good number of respected conservatives who have opposite opinions on the matter. Any difficult issue needs to be well explained to public and yes, supporters as well. That is leadership.
As it stands now, any outcome of this commotion is bad. If the deal is canceled, an important real-politic ally is snubbed when we might need to use them. If it is approved, it is approved after lots of stink, allowing Dems to grandstand, and with some possible holes in the security remaining anyway. A lot of this fallout could have been avoided with a careful planning and proper communication.