11
   

The wall

 
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Sep, 2018 05:06 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Richard Butler, who was chief weapons inspector for some time, came out and said that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction: that the chemical weapons he was given by the US had a shelf life that had expired, that they had no factories capable of producing them, and that they had no ability to produce nuclear weapons.

The U.S.'s response was to publicly attack him, and try to destroy his credibility. There is only one reason for doing that, when your justification for going to war is WoMD.

That was only one of many signs that they wanted war without cause (eg. they kept changing their tune: from, Saddam had ties to Al Qeida, to Saddam had Nuclear Weapons, to Saddam wanted Nuclear Weapons, to Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. As soon as that struck a chord with the public, they harped on that)

When they demanded Saddam prove he had no WoMD, it was then that I knew war was imminent. You cannot prove you don't have something that you don't have (ie there is no paperwork for something that doesn't exist). It was a laughable demand in any event:
- they wouldn't have believed any evidence that was produced (even though you can't produce evidence of the nonexistance of something you never had); and
- 2 years before that, we had newspaper articles that the Australian Army, with all it's computers, couldn't say exactly how much inventory they had, or what exactly was in it. How was Iraq to fare better?

Anyway, off topic of me, just thought it might be interesting.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Sep, 2018 05:14 pm
@vikorr,
I'm afraid that is what Diane Feinstein was depending on; that the US claim that they had WMD's was there even though we could not find them. When the UN Weapons Inspectors were chased out, we all knew they wanted war. BTW, I worked with nukes in the USAF/Strategic Air Command in the late 1950's. I was stationed in Morocco for one year, and that experience initiated my love of world travel. Have traveled to some 128 countries, and have friends in many - even Moscow, Russia.
0 Replies
 
camlok
 
  0  
Reply Sat 22 Sep, 2018 08:15 pm
@vikorr,
Quote:
The U.S.'s response was to publicly attack him, and try to destroy his credibility. There is only one reason for doing that, when your justification for going to war is WoMD.

That was only one of many signs that they wanted war without cause (eg. they kept changing their tune: from, Saddam had ties to Al Qeida, to Saddam had Nuclear Weapons, to Saddam wanted Nuclear Weapons, to Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. As soon as that struck a chord with the public, they harped on that)

...



Even with all these lies from the USA, even with all the voluminous, incontrovertible evidence, even with all the absolute impossibilities to be found in the official story, you still support the murderers.

Unbelievable!!!
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Sep, 2018 09:02 pm
@camlok,
Where have you ever seen me support US wars? Or US / Western financial impoverishment of other nations? Or their propping up of dictators? Or the coups they've run?

Fixated. Fanatic Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Sep, 2018 09:18 pm
Seriously? You want to turn yet another thread into your 9-11 conspiracy theory playground?

I don't support one way or another, whether or not the official version is true. I don't support any of the subsequent wars. You know this. You replied to me criticising the US for going to war in Iraq. And you've seen me criticise other wars. So where is your justification for saying I support murderers? And you accuse me of holding fantasies... Rolling Eyes

Why don't you PM me if you really want to answer. And let this thread get back on topic.
0 Replies
 
neptuneblue
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Oct, 2018 07:35 pm
Trump's 'Compromise' on Border Wall
Terence P. Jeffrey By Terence P. Jeffrey | October 4, 2018 | 11:06 AM EDT

"But I say to Congress, I will never sign another bill like this again," said President Donald Trump. "I'm not going to do it again."

That was at a March 23 press conference after Trump had signed a $1.3 trillion continuing resolution that would fund the government through the remainder of fiscal 2018, which ended this past Sunday.

One of the things that angered Trump about that $1.3 trillion bill was that it only provided $1.6 billion for work on the border wall he had made one of his signature campaign promises. Trump had been seeking a long-term commitment of $25 billion.

"Not happy with $1.6 billion, but it does start the wall," Trump said, "and we will make that $1.6 billion go very, very far."

Flash-forward six months to Sept. 15. Now Trump expressed his dismay in a tweet, not a press conference.

"When will Republican leadership learn that they are being played like a fiddle by the Democrats on Border Security and Building the Wall?" Trump said.

"Without Borders, we don't have a country," he said. "With Open Borders, which the Democrats want, we have nothing but crime!

"Finish the Wall!" he declared.

What inspired this presidential declaration?

A House-Senate conference committee had just finalized another massive spending bill. They called this one a combined "minibus" and "continuing resolution."

Unlike the "omnibus" Trump had signed in March, this minibus-continuing resolution did not fund the entire government in one bill. The "minibus" part of it, however, did "marry" the spending bill for the Department of Defense to the spending bill for the Departments of Labor, Education and Health and Human Services. It would fund those departments through all of fiscal 2019.

The "continuing resolution" part of it would fund only until Dec. 7 — and, according to the House Appropriations Committee, only at "current levels" — any other federal departments that did not have their own appropriations bills signed into law by Sunday, when fiscal 2018 ended.

In other words, those departments would be funded until one month after the upcoming midterm elections.

The Department of Homeland Security — which is responsible for the border wall — was one of these.

During the year, the House Appropriations Committee had approved a Homeland Security bill that provided $5 billion for the wall for fiscal 2019. The Senate committee had approved only $1.6 billion, making no increase from the 2018 level. And the massive minibus-continuing resolution would presumably maintain fiscal 2018's funding level — but only through Dec. 7.

Three days after Trump's tweet, the Senate approved this bill, 93-7. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., joined Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-.Ky., in supporting it.

On Sept. 20, Trump tweeted about the bill again. This time, he put some of his words in capital letters.

"I want to know, where is the money for Border Security and the WALL in this ridiculous Spending Bill," he said, "and where will it come from after the Midterms? Dems are obstructing Law Enforcement and Border Security. REPUBLICANS MUST FINALLY GET TOUGH!"

Six days after this tweet, the Republican leadership brought their minibus-continuing resolution up for a vote in the House. It passed with 185 Democrats voting for it but only 176 Republicans. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., joined House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R.-Calif., in voting for it, while 56 House conservatives voted against it.

Funding for the border wall was not the only significant issue in this bill.

The original Labor-HHS-Education spending bill that the House Appropriations Committee approved in July included language that defunded both Planned Parenthood and research that uses tissue taken from babies killed in induced abortions. But that language was not included in the final minibus-continuing resolution that funded HHS for all of fiscal 2019.

Thus, the bill did not provide the funding Trump was seeking for the border wall, but it did provide the funding Democrats wanted for Planned Parenthood and aborted-baby-parts research.

On Friday, Trump signed into law this bill he had correctly called "ridiculous."

"This spending package reflects the compromise Republican leaders sought with the White House that postpones a fight over Trump's demand for a border wall until after the Nov. 6 midterm elections," the Washington Post reported that day.

If the Democrats win control of the House in November, Trump will have lost any chance he had of building the border wall he promised his supporters. If the Republicans hold the House and the Senate, Trump will need to decide whether he is going to follow them on border security or they are going to follow him.
0 Replies
 
neptuneblue
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2018 06:03 pm
Republicans warn: There's a 'big fight' brewing over Trump's border wall
By Clare Foran, CNN

Updated 8:16 AM ET, Sat October 13, 2018

Washington (CNN)Even with the midterm elections looming, Republican leaders in Congress made clear this week they're paying close attention to a looming battle over President Donald Trump's promised border wall.

On Monday, House Speaker Paul Ryan predicted a "big fight" over border security on the horizon, while Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Wednesday that the GOP is "committed" to working to secure the funding the President wants for his signature campaign pledge.

Republican leaders managed to avoid a battle -- and the political peril of at least a partial government shutdown -- over border funding until after the November elections. But the hot-button issue is on track to flare up when Congress returns to Washington after the midterms, leading to questions over whether there could be a partial shutdown.

"That could be one of the big year-end fights and battles that still remains to be played out," Sen. John Thune, the No. 3 Senate Republican, said on Wednesday. The South Dakota Republican added that "the President is very adamant about getting more money," though he downplayed the potential for a partial shutdown, saying, "I don't accept that that's going to happen."

The challenge for GOP leaders is that promises to fight for the wall could energize conservative voters the party needs to turn out in the midterms, but the threat of a shutdown could risk alienating moderate voters the GOP needs in swing districts. Republicans will also need at least some Democratic votes to pass a spending measure in the Senate -- due to some Senate actions requiring at least 60 votes -- and Democrats may feel even more emboldened to oppose a significant increase in border wall funding if they win the House majority in November.

With those dynamics at play, GOP leaders are dismissing the possibility of a shutdown while predicting a funding fight.

Sen. John Cornyn, the No. 2 Senate Republican, acknowledged that a fight over border funding might lead to a "lack of funding for certain limited functions," but argued that would not amount to a shutdown even if it did happen.

"We've avoided the shutdown by getting the vast majority of the federal government funded through the next fiscal year," he said.
"We knew that that fight was important and it was coming," the Texas Republican added, "but we didn't want to go through another shutdown narrative."

Congress averted a halt in government funding ahead of the midterms by passing legislation at the end of last month to pay for a large portion of the federal government and a shorter-term spending bill to fund the rest until December 7. The package did not, however, include money for the President's long-promised border wall, effectively putting the issue on hold for lawmakers to figure out how to deal with before the December deadline.
House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, a California Republican, helped reignite the border debate this week by announcing plans for a bill that would set aside an eye-popping $23.4 billion to fund a wall.

That is far greater than the $1.6 billion for border security that Congress allocated in a spending bill enacted in March. In August, Trump said he is looking for roughly $5 billion in wall funding "for this next coming year," adding that "we're building the wall, step by step."

Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the minority whip, said he would vote against a $5 billion proposal from Republicans and added that he had "no confidence that the administration can reach an agreement."
If there is a partial shutdown in December, Democrats are likely to portray it as a failure on the part of Republicans to govern.

Durbin said he hopes a shutdown "never occurs" but that if it does it wouldn't be "anything that the Republicans can brag about since they are in charge. I think it will be a further illustration of the ineptitude of this party when it's in control."

Sen. Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat, made a similar argument, saying, "There's a few hard and fast rules on shutdowns and one of them is the party making the demand is normally the party that ends up losing."
Murphy added, "So if Republicans are making the demand and threatening to shut down the government if they don't get border wall funding above and beyond what's been agreed to previously, I'm not sure that they will win that fight."

The President has repeatedly lashed out at lawmakers over funding for the wall, which he said on the campaign trail would be paid for by Mexico. Asked on Wednesday who would be paying for the wall, Thune paused, then said he guessed it would be "the American taxpayer" who would have to shoulder the bill.

Trump said Thursday on "Fox & Friends" that he is "not happy" with the status of the wall and vowed that Republicans would do "something very strong" after the election.

The question now is whether Republicans will have the votes to pass funding legislation that the White House will find acceptable and how bruising the fight will be.

Sen. Richard Shelby, the chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, described going from a $1.6 billion to a roughly $25 billion price tag as "a quantum leap."

The Alabama Republican said, "Our goal working together is to avoid a shutdown. It would be a partial shutdown, but it's very important. We don't want any shutdown." He called the possibility of a shutdown the "gorilla in the room," but said, "We've got time to work on that."

Ryan -- a Wisconsin Republican whose majority in the House is at serious risk in the midterms -- has echoed the idea that a border wall battle is coming, saying on Monday that Republicans will "fight for securing the border."

"We intend on having a full-fledged discussion about how to complete this mission of securing our border, and we will have a big fight about that," he said, adding, "We have a commitment to go fight for securing the border and getting these policy objectives achieved."

McConnell -- a Kentucky Republican who is also working to protect his majority -- similarly pledged that Republicans would work to secure funding during an interview with The Associated Press this week. He also downplayed the potential for any shutdown.

Asked if there would be a shutdown fight after the midterms, McConnell responded, "That episode, if it occurs, would be in that portion of the government that we haven't funded. Seventy-five percent of it we did fund before the end of the fiscal year." But, he added, "We're committed to helping the President try to get the wall funding."

In response to a question about what level of funding he would accept, McConnell said, "We're going to try to help him get what he's looking for," referring to the President's priorities.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Oct, 2018 08:04 pm
@neptuneblue,
A bigot wall. What a waste.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The wall
  3. » Page 5
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/22/2018 at 02:01:45