Reply #13: No. Let me explain it to you in simple terms, so you can understand. [View All]

[Honeycombe8]

1. Poster said the bill does not give any authority the admin. doesn't already have.

Fact: Bills are usually proposed and passed for a purpose, not to make a "statement," so to speak. As with the IWR, which did not out and out "give authority" where none existed (according to the White House), but which was passed for that purpose, it ultimately was used as authority, and has been cited countless times since its passing. Additionally, Clinton herself stated that the purpose of the bill was so that the administration could use it as authority for imposing sanctions.

2. This bill either gives authority or supports a certain point of view that may or may not be good/valid.

Fact: This administration has shown that it cannot be trusted. To either give authority or support a certain point of view of an untrustworthy administration is foolish. In *'s words, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice...uh....uh...well, don't fool me again."

This seems very much like a repeat. Not exactly. But similar.

Do you understand now? Yeah, I thought you would. You may not admit it, but you do. (I expect you're a Clinton supporter. My post was not a criticism of Clinton for voting for it, but a pure discussion of the bill. Sorry if you feel so ashamed of her vote that you feel compelled to attack anyone who tries to discuss it.)