I just showed you how: by a President claiming to enforce the will of Congress.
So what’s the harm in clarifying?
No, it couldn’t. You’re pretending that it could, but it’s obvious to pretty much everybody else that you’re clutching at slivers of straws. You claim that you’re “explaining” how a president could claim he’s “fulfilling the will of Congress”, but it’s patently obvious that you’re just bullshitting and there is absolutely no rational way, at all, that the actual bill can be read as authorizing force.
You have, naturally, also refused to show a single time in all of recorded history where an American president used a sanctions bill, from a previous administration, and claimed that authorized him to go to war. The reason why you can’t even address that point let alone substantiate your absurd claims is pretty clear, of course, even if you remain silent.
Show me a sanctions bill with a comparable statement of public policy.
Besides, it only takes one overreaching President to set the precedent. And then what are you going to do? Impeach him? Not likely where the bill doesn’t make it clear that force is not authorized.
Again, why not clarify? What’s the harm? (Unless the point of this bill really is to lay the groundwork for use of force.)
Yep thought so, you have nothing.
Bare fear-mongering with nothing to back it up. Nothing at all.
I note you still haven’t answered the question: What’s the harm in clarifying?
(Please try to answer without a patently ridiculous analogy.)
I note that you’re still claiming a fiction, and I pointed that out to you once already.
But I can understand why you’d prefer to change the subject from your unsubstantiated fear-mongering.
I’d also note that welfare no more authorizes people to buy drugs than sanctions authorize war, and you’re still just offering babble and claiming that a statement of US policy, a policy we’ve had for roughly a decade now, is somehow an authorization to use force. You really don’t have anything, do you?
Hasn’t it already been explained upthread that the drawback of adding language at this point is that it delays passage of the bill for no discernible purpose?
Naturally, for those who do not like the contents of the bill, this may not appear to be “harm”, but consider that blatantly underhanded tactics like this can be applied as easily to legislation you may consider important. It does no-one any good to encourage meaningless prattle, pandering and fearmongering used as a delaying tactic.
I always get a chuckle when those in the “Iran is sooooo scary” camp accuse others of fearmongering.
And I’d say the benefit of clarity outweighs the (dubious) harm of delay.
Do you notice that your distortions and misdirection aren’t working?
You are trading on nothing but fear-mongering, and don’t have a single fact to back up your absurd Rogue President scenarios.
On the other hand, when faced with facts that show that Iran has attacked the US several times and has cooperated with Al Quaeda which it knew was going to attack the US, and the US did not respond militarily, thereby putting paid to your fear-mongering about possible US attacks on Iran, you are utterly unable to address the actual facts and just add babble about “oooh, scary!” Rather unsurprisingly, you are accusing other people of using the tactics that your argument relies on. You have fear, others have facts? They’re the ones who are fear-mongering. Paul is pandering to the crowd who’s been claiming for nearly a decade that we’re about to attack Iran, we’re pointing out that there are valid reasons for the US not to want Iran to nuke up? Paul isn’t pandering, evil nefarious AIPAC has again subverted the US government and we’re just acting to satisfy their zionisty wishes.
You have less than nothing.
You’re the one who keeps bringing up AIPAC (in an awfully defensive way). Tell us, are you a donor?
And of course, that’s not true either.
First use of AIPAC for fear-mongering via a counter factual Conspiracy Theory about Zionist influence of the US Congress, that’d be you in post 49 and of course you reiterated yourConspiracy Theory about how we’re pandering to AIPAC.
Predictably you are now trying to change the subject with an actual ad hominem.
You still don’t have anything, eh?
So…wait…are you a donor?
There are not. Iran will never be a nuclear threat to the U.S., any more than Israel is.
Ignoring the facts does not serve as a rebuttal, Frank.
Even if we ignore the ME nuclear arms race that Iran is starting, that still leaves the fact that Iran has attacked the US numerous times in the past and cooperated with Al Quaeda. Even if we assume that Iran definitely would not give its terrorist forces nuclear weapons, a reasonably safe assumption, a nuclear deterrent allows it to unleash those forces with virtual impunity. Even if we assume that those forces will not strike the US or its allies, they still have a massive potential to cause conflict within the region.
The claim that there are simply *no *valid reasons for the US to want to prevent Iran from nuking up is so absurd as to reveal the rest of that argument’s concepts as highly suspect, at best.
Iran is starting?
Look, even ignoring that Israel has had nuclear arms for decades, Iran is not a threat to the U.S. We could turn Iran into a glass-based radioactive parking lot within minutes, and they know that.
Yes… the nuclear arms race that has already been started by Iran, as I’ve cited.
And yes we should ignore the fact that Israel has nukes because not only did it not spark a nuclear arms race, but Israel is not the US’ enemy. Your claim that Iran is not a threat to the US is yet more babble. Faced with the fact that Iran has attacked US forces, and did conspire with Al Quaeda before 9/11, your only response is to handwave. The fact that we could nuke Iran is a non sequitur. It’s irrelevant. Iran can still threaten the US, still threaten US interests, and still threaten our regional interests. Even if we did launch nukes at Iran, they could easily launch a retaliatory strike at another nation in the ME in response.
Your argument is simple willful ignorance, and an utter refusal to admit both that the US has any valid reasons at all for not wanting a nuclear Iran followed by your claim that despite all evidence to the contrary Iran is no threat at all shows that your position is not based on the facts, is in fact opposed to the facts, and should be ignored as any uninformed punditry should be.
Speaking of willful ignorance.
Yes Frank, your argument is based on willfull ignorance as proven by your deliberate ignorance of the facts I’ve cited. Your implication that Israel somehow sparked a nuclear arms race is, to put it mildly, imaginary and ignorant.