The context "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy." doesn't really change the way I think about her remarks.
Controversy or not, it's a ridiculous assertion.
Those paragraphs eliminate the possible interpretation of her sentence as you can only find out what's in the bill if we pass it. They also eliminate you can only be certain what's in the bill if we pass it-- she was clearly claiming the bill as an obvious positive step in health care.
It even eliminates we have to pass quickly to overcome the Republicans' criticisms-- because obviously the Republicans would (and did!) continue vociferously critiquing it after it passed.
The only meaning left I can see is the obvious interpretation-- we have to pass this so that you can benefit from the things I just said, and those benefits won't be subject to controversy. That's like bog standard political rhetoric-- what every politician claims for legislation aimed at the general public.
It's certainly an awkward sentence, but it's not difficult to figure out what she meant.
"We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."
is equivalent to
"the bill as an obvious positive step in health care."
requires blackout-inducing inertial velocity.
> It's certainly an awkward sentence
Why not call a spade a spade and say she misspoke?
I cannot expect any site publishing such garbage be much better with the rest of their content. I certainly cannot expect any site rating such a site as "pretty accurate" any where near unbiased.
It really is sad to see these sites to sink as low as they have. They used to be decent.