ext_176783 ([identity profile] madscience.livejournal.com) wrote in [community profile] politicartoons 2014-06-23 02:29 am (UTC)

Again, the existence of the proposal was confirmed, not the fact that the White House was planning to go ahead with it. The latter is what the law requires Congress be informed of.

You realize that for your interpretation of these events to be correct, there would have to be a vast bipartisan conspiracy to call the President a liar. What's more likely — that, or that your interpretation is just utterly wrong and stupid?

Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting