Froomkin ask and answers a worthy question:

Always worth a read, always:

Some American journalists intent on fact-checking President Bush's vision of Iraq are finding it too dangerous to inspect the areas Bush yesterday cited as models of success.

Which sort of tells you the story right there...

...There were, however, at least a couple reporters plying their trade in Bush's exemplary cities yesterday.

In The Washington Post, Saad Sarhan in Najaf teamed up with Robin Wright in Washington for a story that contrasted Bush's words with the facts on the ground.

"Some Iraqis challenged Bush's assertions," they write. "In Najaf, Rafid Farhan, 33, said security is now controlled by Moqtada Sadr, a young cleric and militia leader, and not U.S. troops or the Iraqi government. . . .

"[M]ilitia fighters of the two rival religious parties that control the Shiite holy city recently clashed in street battles. A few days ago, former prime minister Ayad Allawi was attacked during a visit by an angry, rock-throwing mob that some Iraqis charge was backed by a militia -- and that Allawi called an assassination attempt."

As for Mosul, Wright was tagging along with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice when she made a stop there last month -- "although the city is still so volatile that she flew by Black Hawk helicopter to the U.S. military headquarters and never got into the city. . . .

" 'Progress is running far behind Iraqi expectations in virtually every area,' said Wayne White, head of the State Department's Iraq intelligence team from 2003 to 2005 and now an adjunct scholar at the Middle East Institute. 'In their view, most Iraqis are not seeing "amazing progress." All too many of them live in constant danger, with less electricity in many areas than under Saddam Hussein.' "

Given that virtually EVERYTHING Bush has said has been incorrect about Iraq, especially words beginning with "W", "M", "D" (as well as "F", "P" and A through C, E, G through L, N, O, and, oh yes, Q through Z) it would be nice if the the press would be ready to actually fact check what he says within say, three hours of when he says it.

For example, after Bush says that things are swell in Mosul, CNN goes to its correspondent in Iraq and asks him, "So how are things goin in Mosul" where upon the correspondent can correctly state, "I don't know, its not safe for me to go there and look."

That would pretty much answer the question of whether Bush is telling the truth or not.

Perhaps we should just try a simpler, easier to apply method.

"Are Bush's lips moving?"

If yes, then lying.