[Theo]

Puzzling. While it's good that she's signed the executive order to enforce the law, why is she pledging to veto a bill that seems to accomplish the same thing?

[elfman2]

" Puzzling. While it's good that she's signed the executive order to enforce the law, why is she pledging to veto a bill that seems to accomplish the same thing? "

Yea, sounds like she wants credit and authority in the move.

[Puppage]

Puzzling. While it's good that she's signed the executive order to enforce the law, why is she pledging to veto a bill that seems to accomplish the same thing?

[Spiff]

Puzzling. While it's good that she's signed the executive order to enforce the law, why is she pledging to veto a bill that seems to accomplish the same thing?

That is typical Napolitano behavior. She talks a good game, says she's for something, but when the actual legislation gets passed that does exactly what she and her office said it had to do, she vetoes it and makes up stupid reasons to do so. She's done this with a number of bills and it would not surprise me if she got out her playbook and did it with this. Like most Democrats, her primary constituency voter demographic are the gullible and stupid.

[monkeywrench]

The answer to that probably lies in the details. Maybe there was something in the other bill that would conflict with getting a new voter base.

[theDentist]

I expect tthat by killing the bill (which could make the NG stationed there permanently, she loses the capability to withdraw them after a few weeks/months and declare "Victory".