In Orcinus, David Neiwert writes about Bush the Liar and gathers together the facts and the evidence quite well. It’s excellent reading and another fine example of argument based on facts. Will there be rebuttals based on fact or on rhetoric?

Here’s more fuel for the fire: TomPaine.com cites three very specific lies, Salon asks why the press is giving Bush a free pass on the lies when they savaged Gore over supposed exaggerations (which largely turned out to be anything but), and The Daily Howler reports that all hard data on Iraq ceased over five years ago leading one to ask what evidence we’re supposed to be believing in now.