A dubious reason by Bush for pocket veto--Perhaps this is the REAL reason??:

[rodeodance]

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2007/12/a-dubious-veto.html

........The NYT quotes someone who should know and who claims Bush's reasoning is nonsense:

Meanwhile, a Washington lawyer who has represented Americans who were abducted by Iraqi forces after the 1990 invasion of Kuwait said that he doubted the official explanation for President Bush’s rejection of the bill.

This very late and unusual action against a bill which has wide majority support smells of panic. But panic about what?

A reader at Hullabaloo suggests:

I suspect that the key to the pocket veto has nothing to do with Iraqi assets. Rather, it is contained a little line buried in the last paragraph of the Memorandum of Disapproval: "... I continue to have serious objections to other provisions of this bill, including section 1079 relating to intelligence matters . . ."

That passage of the law (search for HR 1585) says:

SEC. 1079. COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE COMMITTEES ON ARMED SERVICES OF THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

(a) Requests of Committees- The Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, the Director of a national intelligence center, or the head of any element of the intelligence community shall, not later than 45 days after receiving a written request from the Chair or ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate or the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives for any existing intelligence assessment, report, estimate, or legal opinion relating to matters within the jurisdiction of such Committee, make available to such committee such assessment, report, estimate, or legal opinion, as the case may be.......MORE....with good links.....

[Jackpine Radical]

1. Dimly, in the winter darkness of Jackpine's brain,

a light dawns.

Sure.

[rodeodance]

3. I think it was a good catch.

[Jackpine Radical]

5. Indeed. An excellent catch.

Running a little scared, are they?

[TwilightGardener]

2. I think it's because Chimpy is afraid of opening up a can of worms from

lawsuits of 9/11 victims looking into the Iraq/9/11 connection (uh, there IS none) and the Saudi connection (there IS a connection between Saudis and 9/11). Dangerous territory.

[TwilightGardener]

4. Here's a question--if Chimpy vetoed the bill because of this intelligence provision, then

it will be easy to prove, right?--just watch and see WHICH provisions are changed when Congress meets in January.

[Jackpine Radical]

6. Be interesting to see where the Bushies draw the line in the sand.

1079 didn't get there by accident. I wonder if Congress will drop it in the interest of "bipartisanship?"