The movement continues in Iran
Oh boy, the movements caught the imagination of the country. This is going to get more violent before it is over, but I hope the protesters stay strong.

Imminent threats and such
Josh Marshall has a little review about the WMD's mess. Trying to rely on the witness of a former ambassador to Niger for confirmation of information *now* about Niger selling WMD's seems a little farfetched. How can Josh (admittedly, while relying on another article) take this at face value? A probable Clinton appointee ambassador is using strong language about a situation that he far removed from. Yes, he knew at one time, some of the players involved. Does he still have all the information on Niger, and the present situation plus some sort of un-documented proof that Bush was clearly lying?

The democrats have a serious credibility problem trying to portray anyone as liars. Clinton and the mess he left for the Dems and his unfortunate and consistent lying (along with his wife) has left a band of cynical and vengeful group of democrats. Here's *the* quote from Josh:

I don't know off hand how the former ambassador would be in a position to confirm that the CIA had passed the information [about the fake sale of uranium to Iraq from Niger] on to Cheney's office. But the authors wouldn't have published his confirmation unless he was in a position to know.

Okay, so now it is simply the former ambassador's word against Bush. This argument just fell apart....what about this:

And, frankly, though it is possible, it's simply strains credulity to the breaking point to believe that such information would not have made it to Cheney himself. And that's being generous.

Really? Just the fact that this is a serious issue and cause (amongst some) to doubt the administration is one reason that this information might be held back. I don't know when the last time Josh Marshall was at the workplace (I assume he works from home), but where i have always worked, there is always reason to keep certain details from a boss because there might be ramifications (if my boss is reading, there's is nothing to report from me...all old jobs, honest). Just the fact that this is a huge problem for the president is one reason....and for plausible deniability.

Let's just say one thing though: whatever you may say about Bush, he has not lied so far and appears to be straighforward. The general public (not the New York/LA Axis of biased journalism) will grant him some leeway on this because for the most part he is honest.

As far as Softwood, Agricultural subsidies, steel tariffs and a host of government interference issues in trade....those aren't "lying" issues, they're just bad policy that hurt the US and their trade partners.