Wow. He is stubborn on this one. Even the usual GOP lapdogs on the Hill are freaked out by Bush's decision to let the UAE owned company guard American ports. But, Bush is not backing down -- he's even talking veto

Oh, please, Mary. He hasn't vetoed anything in five years, despite numerous threats. It's part of his infallible image. George W. Bush can do no wrong. He can't think of a single mistake he's made in office when asked. He doesn't veto bills because, in George W. Bush's America, imperfect bills don't land on his desk. That would mean the GOP-controlled House (since 1994) and Senate (early 2001 and since 2003) had made a mistake. Republicans don't make mistakes. When mistakes happen on the GOP watch, they happen in the passive voice. No one makes mistakes - mistakes "were made." Decisions "were blown." Corruption "was encouraged."

He can't veto the bill. He probably doesn't even know how to veto a bill. He's probably like that other guy in the shadow of a competent President Bush and thinks you spell it "vetoe." He'll hold his breath until Dennis Hastert's face turns blue, but he doesn't have the manual dexterity to veto a bill. This is the gang that can't even obey the 218-year-old Constitutional requirement that both the House and Senate pass the same version of a bill before it can become law. They don't care. They have no regard for the law or the constitution. He'll sign the bill and then give the contract to who he wants anyway, and we all know it.

The only surprise here is that people still take this seriously. Vetoes, the constitutional process, the requirement that you not shoot people in the face and that you talk to the police if you do - they dodge it all because the Congress is their lapdog and the press believes that if something were really wrong, they would have been held accountable by now by some mysterious non-Republican oversight agency that the Washington Post imagines to be there, watching all this and ruling "no harm, no foul."

"Oooh, he may veto the bill." Ha. It'll probably come out in a few weeks that people with direct ties to September 11 terrorists got control of the port security company to cover their tracks, and the Post will dither, "Goodness, that sounds bad, but no one got fired so it must not be bad." No veto, no accountability, no problem. How can anyone believe it will be any different?