Reply #62: Now you're spinning

[knight_of_the_star]

And accusing me of the same. Go ahead and tell me that the clause I cited is NOT in IWR with a straight face.

"The first clause clearly spells out under what circumstances the IWR was provided for...Bush violated both of them...

Last, it is delusional to believe Bush would have let a no vote on the IWR stop him...he believed, as he said then, and says now, that he had the constitutional authority to act..."

That is contradictory in and of itself to say in one breath the circumstances were provided and yet then to say he would have acted without and its delusional to ignore that. So why did she vote for IWR if it is obvious to anyone he would have acted as he saw fit anyway? That gave him moral authority to act as he saw fit. And how does that jibe with voting for legislation that gives a clause that says one man has the power to "act as they see fit?" How does that fit into democracy as a whole? How does that ensure the man being given the power will actually act responsibly and not violate the terms of the resolution? And how can you tell me with a straight face it is ok to give someone such broad and open-ended authority then complain about him violating other terms of the resolution? How do his actions not fit under the category of acting as they saw fit?