Dem
52
Ties
4
GOP
44
Speaking of nonsense, Donald Trump and his underlings are really, really trying to get ground broken on the triumphal arch he so badly wants to build as a monument to himself. This weekend, he announced some important new details about the project:
At the strong request of the United States Military, and for National Security purposes, I have agreed to convert the magnificent Triumphal Arch, planned since the Civil War Era many years ago, at the Receptive Circle adjoining the Arlington Memorial Bridge, into a top grade Military Complex/Triumphal Arch, to house, store, and have the rapid ability to use large numbers of drones, plus Snipers, on both the roof and plaza areas, and additionally have and hold large quantities of sniper ammunition in storage. There will be no facility like this anywhere in the World. Out of the 59 top cities and Capitals, Washington, D.C., IS THE ONLY ONE IN THE WORLD THAT DOES NOT HAVE A TRIUMPHAL ARCH, but it will now and, by far, the greatest of them all! Thank you for your attention to this matter. President DONALD J. TRUMP
Note that we are aware of this news even with CNN, MS NOW and Politico no longer having access to the White House.
This announcement immediately raises many questions:
1. What is the difference between a "request" and a "strong request"?
2. Doesn't "the strong request of the United States Military" really just mean "Pete Hegseth said he thought this would be a good idea"?
3. Who decides what the "59 top cities and Capitals" are? For example, Los Angeles seems to be a pretty important city, but it doesn't have a triumphal arch.
4. Why is this needed? Keep in mind that the arch is set to be built between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington Cemetery. These are not places that particularly need to be protected by snipers.
5. Why did it just occur to Trump to mention this now?
6. Will the structure really be a glorious monument to American greatness if it is simultaneously an arsenal and a guard tower? We imagine that people would be far less impressed with the Eiffel Tower or the London Eye if there were visible soldiers with high-powered guns stationed on them. It's sort of like those cell phone towers that are made to look like trees. They look better than a bare cell phone tower but, in the end, they're still cell phone towers and not trees.
Obviously, Trump is pulling the same stunt here he did with the ballroom. When something is just a Trump vanity project, it's going to be less popular than if it's a Trump vanity project AND it's also a "military necessity."
That said, the difference is that he could, and did, tear down the existing East Wing of the White House. One day, in some fashion or another, it's going to have to be rebuilt. And however and whenever that happens, Trump and his supporters will claim it is a great achievement for him. On the other hand, the only thing Trump can do with the triumphal arch is break ground. At some point, Congress is going to have to fund the project, and it seems unlikely they will do so after Jan. 3, 2027. They also probably won't do so before Jan. 3, 2027, since there are only a couple of dozen days remaining where they will be in session, and such a bill would be unpopular and possibly filibusterable.
In short, we understand why Trump added this new "revelation" to the pile. But we don't think it will work, particularly on the timeline he needs. (Z)